in reply to Should code that does not use strict even be considered here?

I am rather new to this site ... I propose ... code that does not contain a "use strict" should get exactly one answer

Why? Cos you say so?

Cliche or truism? "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

This place has enough language lawyers, instant experts, and capricious, unwritten rules, without anyone mandating how everyone else should constrain their altruistic impulses, in order to comply with other people's (be they one or many) dogmas.

FYI: I've used both strict and warnings in every Perl script I've written since I learned of their existance--which was just prior to the third Perl program I ever wrote.

However, I've also seen some quite remarkable code written without one or both. And whilst they remain optional, I recognise that other people may arrive at a different conclusions to I regarding their value.

Or, simply not yet encountered them--as with my first two Perl scripts.


Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."
  • Comment on Re: Should code that does not use strict even be considered here?