use Perl

• bad idea (Score:1)

  by slanning (5049)

  It's anti-Perl. Leave aside the logical arguments, like the inability of sysadmins everywhere to update their systems because of their crappy code. When default strictures happen, we'll know that Perl is, finally, in fact dead. It would really limit obfuscation and poetry, after all. Next thing you'll be wanting us to indent blocks by a fixed amount of whitespace. It's fascist!
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by Aristotle (5147)

    Really. All those sysadmins’ existing crappy scripts will magically grow a use 5.012; line at the top of the script. Amazing.
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by tsee (4409)

    Please re-read the proposal. It happens only if you explicitly ask for 5.12.0 features.
    
    Cheers,
    Steffen
    • Re: (Score:1)

      by slanning (5049)

      Ah.... hmmm, calling it "by default" could be a bit misleading, then. Anyway, I was exaggerating my reply. :)
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by sigzero (5768)

    I think it is anti-Perl as well.
    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jhi (318)

      You are anti-Larry.
      
      http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2007-12/msg00842.html [mpe.mpg.de]
      
      
• Not sure what the opposite of a flame is... (Score:1)

  by Adrian (66)

  ... but that's what you'd be getting from me.
  
  I'd enable warnings too :-)
• The opposite of a flame is a bucket of cold water (Score:1)

  by Ron Savage (5224)

  I vote for use strict /and/ use warnings both being enabled.
  
• +1 from me (Score:1)

  by Alias (5735)

  Having warnings enabled by default can sometimes be problematic, for example Apache error logs do have cases where warning spam blows them up (so I don't generally enable warnings in production unless we're seeing problems).
  
  But having "use 5.012" implicitly mean "use strict;" can only be positive as far as I can see.
  
  It upgrades one good practice (using strict) to an even better practice (always declaring minimum Perl version compatibility).