Re^2: Why isn't C<use strict> the default?

It just struck me reading yet another "I haven't quite yet made the leap to using strict and my..." story of woe that if it were made

the default configuration for source distributions.
Most installations needing backwards compatibility probably build their own, and would be able to cope with changing the default configuration.
the default for binary distributions disable-abe by a command line, she-bang line or PERL5OPT switch.

an aweful lot of newbies would have been saved an aweful lot of pain by not building the seemingly insurmountable "barrier of experience" to using strict.

Ce la vie. History shows, but rarely shows it well.

Examine what is said, not who speaks.

"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
"Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon

Comment on Re^2: Why isn't C<use strict> the default?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by Mutant (Priest) on Oct 28, 2004 at 13:26 UTC
Exactly... I really struggle to see who we're protecting with this backwards compatability issue. There's basically two groups People who download a script from somewhere that doesn't run under use strict People who are running applications that don't run under use strict (they are either old, or poorly written), and decide to upgrade their version of Perl without doing any testing. It seems to me there are simple solutions for both groups (either don't upgrade, or turn off strict). Do we really want to protect these groups to the detriment of everyone else?	[reply]
Re^4: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by Anonymous Monk on Oct 28, 2004 at 18:06 UTC
You don't have to struggle. Backwards compatiblity has always been one of the primary goals and is not going to change any time soon. If you want strict on by default distribute your own perl.	[reply]
Re^4: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by Anonymous Monk on Oct 28, 2004 at 16:59 UTC
Why is it that you want others to suffer the burden? Who are you that you think it's easy for others to change their programs? You have no fucking clue how many programs will break, how many companies will use that as an excuse to no longer allow Perl to be used, or how it will hurt Perl as a movement. Anyway, you don't have to convince one AM. You'd have to convince p5p or Larry. And I'm willing to bet a significant amount of money that it ain't going to happen. Of course, you are free to patch your own version of perl.	[reply]
Re^3: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by Anonymous Monk on Oct 28, 2004 at 17:08 UTC
Build a language aimed at newbies, and only newbies will use your language.	[reply]
Re^4: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 28, 2004 at 17:29 UTC
So what your saying is that as soon has the newbie has learnt enough of this "language for newbies" to decide he isn't a newbie any longer, he'll stop using it and go off and learn a different (new?) language? You really think so? Examine what is said, not who speaks. "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham "Think for yourself!" - Abigail "Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon	[reply]
Re^5: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Oct 29, 2004 at 08:28 UTC
I still think PASCAL was a great language to teach me some good habits as a programming neophyte. For any actual task I have to do nowadays I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re^6: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 29, 2004 at 08:51 UTC
Re^5: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by Happy-the-monk (Canon) on Oct 29, 2004 at 10:32 UTC
...as soon has the newbie has learnt enough of this "language for newbies" to decide he isn't a newbie any longer, he'll stop using it... Actually, yes, I see and have seen that often. Done that too. Sorry I have to disagree. Didn't you make decisions like: No more BASIC, no more DOS, no more Ada, no more awk, no more shell scripting, much less use of sed, use more perl in vi than vi builtins... (to name some of mine as an example)? Cheers, Sören	[reply]
Re^6: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by Anonymous Monk on Oct 29, 2004 at 10:58 UTC
Re^5: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by Anonymous Monk on Oct 28, 2004 at 22:56 UTC
Do you still ride on a bicycle with training wheels? Do you go to a piano concert to hear the pianist play "chopsticks"? Do you still read books with big letters, and without long words or sentences? People cast away their training equipment and replace it with something more powerful/efficient all the time, so I don't think at all they wouldn't do it with programming languages.	[reply]
Re^6: Why isn't C<use strict> the default? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 29, 2004 at 00:30 UTC