Unfortunately, that's not quite the right attitude. That's like saying "I'll learn how the safety switch works after I've mastered pulling the trigger." Kind of.
Turning on 'strict' (one of the consequences of which is that you'll have to 'my' your variables) helps you catch noob errors. When you've mastered that fundamental mode of programming, then you'll be better equipped to foray into the minefields of global variables, symbolic references, dynamic subroutines, etc.
| [reply] |
Well, obviously, I ought to have written: "I haven't seriously tried 'my' or 'strict' yet."
In fact, I have already tried "decent" programming once or twice but, you know, since I'm only an amateur (no special training, no undergraduate studies, no professional ambitions... you see, I'm just a teacher of English), I only get frustrated when I type the magic words "use strict" and then... nothing works! Unless, of course, I do everything properly.
Of course, I would like to get there but, for the time being, I simply want to enjoy the overwhelming power perl has given me as I try to modify texts or create different versions of the same test in a desperate attempt to avert cheating. ;-)
So... OK! I admit it! I'm so voluptuous that I refuse to practice "safe" programming... for the time being... Just let me have some fun first! After all, penance and repentance come after you've sinned, don't they, brother? ;-)
| [reply] |
It's serious, but all too common, fundamental mistake to think that if your program coughed up no errors, it "worked". Even so, I do encourage you to have fun. We learn from our mistakes too.
| [reply] |