note
dragonchild
I think we have a fundamental difference in assumption about what code is and what it is not. My assumption is that the code I write is not <i>mine</i> in the way that my underwear is <i>mine</i>. I write code that part of a group's work. The stuff I type in <b>will</b> be edited by someone else and I <b>will</b> be editing code that someone else typed in.
<p>With that in mind, I have to try to write my code as strictly as possible. This means turning on all strictures and warnings. Now, I have, do, and will write code with soft references in it, in violation of strict-refs. I have, do, and will write code that needs <code>no warnings 'uninitialized'</code>.
<p>I suspect the difference between you and I is that I am directly accountable to other people. These people are extremely programmers, but I'm still accountable to them. So, I have to demonstrate why I feel that strict-refs or no-warnings is appropriate.
<p>The thing I always return to is that the warning is describing a potential error condition. By turning off warnings, I'm turning off a error-detector. Sometimes, it is annoying, but it's saved my butt at 3am on Saturday more often than I'd care to admit.
<!-- Node text goes above. Div tags should contain sig only -->
<div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-85580">
<hr>
My criteria for good software:
<ol>
<li>Does it work?
<li>Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
</ol>
</div></div>
482733
483010