Re^2: Use of 'our' considered harmful

Bingo! I've not got a problem with people using (eg) Unicode-friendly features (#include rant about utf-*) if they need them. But no-one has a need for our that I can see.

Brother Juerd said further up the thread that maybe this should be about five year old versions of perl being considered harmful. Sorry Brother, but I just don't see that. This 'ere machine, which I installed not three months ago, has a *ten* year old version of awk and a six year old sed. I use those most days. There's no need to upgrade. Many users don't see why they should upgrade perl when their perl is only half that age. They consider such a moving target to indicate a certain immaturity in perl.

Comment on Re^2: Use of 'our' considered harmful Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Use of 'our' considered harmful by Jenda (Abbot) on Sep 24, 2004 at 13:36 UTC
You might very well like and use a hammer your father bought thirty years ago, you'd probably not like a TV he bought at the same time nearly as much. Simple things do not age/evolve as quickly as the complex ones. Jenda Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live. -- Rick Osborne	[reply]
Re^3: Use of 'our' considered harmful by itub (Priest) on Sep 24, 2004 at 13:12 UTC
If evolving can be considered synomymous with immature, you are right. AWK is an old (and comparatively small) language frozen in time, so it's not surprising that the 10-year old interpreters work perfectly well. Perl is always experimenting, which I agree is problematic from a systems administrator's point of view. And since many sysadmins don't care about upgrading perl, I often end up having my own version on my ~/bin directories...	[reply]


"be consistent"
	PerlMonks