Re: [Boston.pm] Python

   From: Tom Metro <pm-5a1Jt6qxUNc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:11:22 -0400

   Bob Rogers wrote:
   >    ...they could mandate use of "use Enterprise" or whatever its called.
   > 
   > Or maybe Perl::Critic [3] ?

   Yes, in theory the 'use criticism'[1] pragma is the same idea. But I'm 
   sure people comparing Perl + 'use criticism' to other moire restrictive 
   languages would be quick to point out that 'use criticism' imposes a lot 
   of overhead and isn't recommend for use in production . . .

But, at the risk of being obscure, you don't have to "use" it in order
to take advantage of it.  The Parrot project has started employing
Perl::Critic from "make test", where it incurs no runtime overhead at
all -- and can also be applied to C sources as appropriate.

   . . . and that it isn't just one standard - how 'use criticism'
   behaves is dependent on one of 5 possible arguments and your
   .perlcriticrc file. More generally, Perl::Critic can be customized to
   enforce any rule. Such flexibility seems to be just what the critics
   of Perl don't want.

     -Tom

You would think that the ability to be "stricter than strict" would sell
it to such people.  Then again, the real issue is probably groupthink,
which is usually impervious to any argument.

                                        -- Bob