Re^5: Why isn't C<use strict> the default?

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.

Comment on Re^5: Why isn't C<use strict> the default?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

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]