It isn't about the configurability; but rather, the default configuration.

Facebook offers secure messaging, but the default is insecure; and to use it, you have to reconfigure it every time. Why? Because they don't want you to use it.

And so it is for the Critic. The defaults are such that they neuter Perl, rendering it verbose, stilted and gutless; Java with sigils.

But far worse; it gives a stick to those, without the knowledge or judgement to make informed decisions, with which to beat those who could. It sets an arbitrary and capricious standard by which those, without the capacity and drive to learn the language, can hamstring those who have taken the time and effort to do so.

And worst of all, it implies without stating, some utopian view that compliant code will be good code; and non-compliant code is "bad code".

Yet, it is easily demonstrated that you can take code that doesn't work and make it fully compliant; and it still won't work.

And equally, take thoroughly tested and exercised working code; and it will flag up a gazillion red-herrings.

It is dumb pretending to be smart; rote pretending to be intelligence; it is the failed writer turned film critic; the failed sportsman yelling advice to the professional and berating the referee/umpire.

It has done more harm to Perl -- by confirming and legitimising every uninformed and malicious opinion of the write-only language -- than any other single thing barring only PBP.

A tad harsh and I dare say true only in the extreme circumstances. The Critic is just a tool and even the most blunt force tool requires skill to use properly. It doesn't require you to do anything. The Critic **should** cause you to think before making changes, either to conform or defy. But, as you point out, blind obedience is not useful.

In that sense, my question was poorly formed. Having made the decision to use eval in this version of the code, I was really looking for any other low impact suggestions I could make use of that would minimize risk and maintenance, making the rather grand assumption the Critic would agree.

Given more time, I would almost certainly take out the eval and use some other form of data store for all this, I just happen to be moving on before I'll get that chance.

Regardless, thanks for the response and opinion. We all need a good jab in the brain every so often to keep us on track.

The Critic is just a tool and even the most blunt force tool requires skill to use properly.

The problem is quite simple. Anyone who has the skills required to use Critic properly; doesn't need it. (That's not to say that it couldn't save them some time.)

But in the absence of those skills; it becomes the defacto expert; both reference and arbiter.

Whilst the ability to misuse it is not the responsibility of the authors; the default configuration is.

By their choice of that default configuration they've produced a gun with a hair trigger and no safety; a car with 500bhp and drum brakes; a plane that can pull 9G that breaks up at 7G.

Unfortunately, those extreme circumstances are simply: a lack of perl expertise. And that gets more common by the day. In part, because of the existence of tools like the critic.

Why pay to employ someone from the ever diminishing pool of Perl expertise; when you can download the critic and machine-apply rote as a substitute to get the tick in the "code review" check box.

Job done. Job gone.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

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". I knew I was on the right track :)

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.