You don't need to agree with the article to find it interesting.

True, but I fail to see how this article is particularly interesting. It's 3 paragraphs of poorly spelt opinion that doesn't really offer anything new, or back up any of it's assertions with anything substantial.

I welcome any reasonable, well thought out criticism of anything I work on, or any project I'm involved in, or even support. However, this is basically FUD. InfoQ has some interesting articles, but they seem to value quantity highly, and a lot of their posts are just padding.

No one really knows if Parrot is too late, will succeed of fail, or whatever. It's irrelevant how quickly something is released if it offers significant advantages over whatever else is available. (That's not a guarantee of success, but success or failure does not rest on how early/late it was released at that point). On top of that, I don't think it's useful to consider the success of Parrot in isolation. There's a good chance Parrot will fail if Perl 6 isn't widely used. Would the JVM or the CLR be widely used if they didn't have at least one popular language to run on them?

(Note: I'm defining success above as "widespread adoption". There might be other definitions, of course. Also note, I'm not involved in Parrot or Perl 6 development).