Re^3: Why isn't C<use strict> the default?

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?

Comment on Re^3: Why isn't C<use strict> the default?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]