You can't expect us - the general public - to know the detailed discussions of Perl6's genesis.

I don't expect that at all. I expect you to be able to understand my argument:

• Moar was made, in part, to speed up Rakudo.
• Moar began in April 2012.
• One of the criticisms of Parrot that lead to Moar was "10 years of development led by different architects at different periods of time (each of them with good ideas, I should add) led to a fair amount of baggage, as it would in any software project." (The most charitable reading of this is that a single architect for Moar might lead to less baggage, but let's be realistic -- any project more than a couple of years old will have baggage.
• Rakudo dropped Parrot support four and a half years ago. (Let's assume that Moar and Parrot had sufficient feature parity at that point.)

If feature parity was a milestone (and I expect it was) and speed is a goal (as we have heard), that's at least four and a half years to focus on speed, assuming that the new architecture of Moar only makes speed possible and doesn't confer any measurable speedups on its own. So where are the dramatic speed improvements? What feature or capability that exists in September 2019 justifies all of the churn and drama of the past 8 - 9 years by giving me something usable I didn't have in 2011?

It's especially interesting to read the comment on Patrick's post that "Rakudo needed NFG support and Parrot refused to provide it", because that's utter nonsense. But I suppose I'm fairly sensitive to opportunity costs and the community costs of not delivering something that's been long promised.

Again I don't even understand what NFG is.

Our sub thread started here Re: Ovid's take on the renaming of "Perl6" and was about potential future optimisations.

You are concentrating in repeating what went wrong in the past and how promises were broken.

And it seems that I'm the surrogate target for your frustration.

Well if you need my confirmation that Perl6 is a classic example of bad management:

Granted!

• Over optimistic
• Osborning,
• drivel heavy,
• lost in community,
• marketing desaster,
• compatibility chaos,
• etc.

But you've also been a poster boy of this management group for a decade, and I'm not targeting you with my frustration.

Let's end it here, ok?

I'd suggest you ask Ovid directly what he meant with his statement.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice}

PS: FWIW I asked Damian in Riga 8 years ago if P6 shouldn't better be renamed "Perl++" to reflect the compatibility issues. And he said probably yes, but it's "already too late."

Our sub thread started here Re: Ovid's take on the renaming of "Perl6" and was about potential future optimisations.
You are concentrating in repeating what went wrong in the past and how promises were broken.

Yes. Exactly.

But you've also been a poster boy of this management group for a decade.

Sure. That's why I stopped. After 10 years of evidence that promises would be broken, I stopped believing the people who made those promises over and over again.

Why should I believe them now, after another 8 years of broken promises?

Damian … said it's "already too late."

I agree. I have no clear idea how a rename will help anyone at this point unless the porters decide to release the next update as Perl 7 the same time the rename happens. But still, without some significant marketing dollars spread around—and maybe an extremely good app or two—it will harm more than help. There will be no differentiator in the release, unless signatures and some OO become bombproof, non-experimental core. The widespread, entrenched hatred for Perl 5 will commute directly to Perl 7 with newly strengthened critiques: look at this mess, it hasn’t changed, it’s just a trick, the upgrade cycle will kill everyone’s apps, as if Perl had any apps, compatibility is impossible with a double version jump, talk about your backpedalling! et cetera, et cetera.

And FTR I still disagree, strongly, that Perl 6 hurt Perl 5 particularly or in the grand scheme. Perl 5 was circling the drain *beforehand*. That was the entire genesis. Perl 6 caused some confusion but less division of effort than claimed and it brought back-ported improvements and renewed interest. Without that, I don’t know that Perl 5 wouldn’t be in worse shape today.