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 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 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
Yeah, and I also made a decision to not even start to use Python. (Although I think it's a wonderful language for newbie programmers, and many people programming in Perl would be far better off programming in Python (including, but not limited to, almost anyone who force "better coding style", for some measurement of "better" in one way or another upon others)). Idem for Java. Had I been a programming in Python, I think I would have made the switch to Perl eventually. Had I been programming in Java, I would have switched to C (but I'll stick to C and don't see myself going to Java route).	[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
Read the whole thread, or at least my contributions. I am not advocating any change to the language. none; nada; zip; zilch; nothing; not one iota; not a lot! So what the F*** does pascal have to with the price of bread? 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 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
All equally bad analogies. See 403503 for a better one. The first thing is that `strict` isn't "training equipment", it's safety equipment. F1/NASCAR/Rally drivers all wear crash hats, seat belts & nomex. So do fighter pilots, firefighters, soldiers, sailors, builders, minors, surveyors.... Nobody, least of all me, was suggesting that `strict` should be mandatory--just the default. Able to be disabled either by configuration at build time, or by command line/shebang line/PERL5OPTS/`no strict` at runtime. It would be disabled for `-e` also. For those with the confidence (misplaced or not), to code without it, would be entirely at liberty to do so with the most minimum of effort. Those with the knowledge to make that decision, would know how to make it. Those rare few that need the last ounce of performance would be capable of getting it, for the sake of however many microseconds it would take to interpret and not load the module transparently. It wouldn't change the language, reduce it's power, or it's performance one iota. The only effect of the change would be that those who have not yet aquired enough knowledge to know how (or why) to gain it's protection and assistance, would get it by default. Should safety catches be removed from guns because "safety is for whooses"? 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] [d/l] [select]