*blink blink* Huh?!? When is disregarding another language's strengths a good thing? Or, is the idea "We can't do it, so it can't be good"? FYI - the Perl6 object system is heavily influenced by Ruby, Python, Smalltalk, and Lisp. In fact, as stvn has put it, the P6 OO system is meant to take the best elements from the best-of-breed languages and meld them into something that doesn't suck.

Yes, Perl is an amazing language. By far, it's the best all-purpose language out there, with the CPAN being a major component of that. This doesn't mean that it can't be improved. If it's to be improved, one needs to find languages that do things better, then borg those features into Perl. That's what Perl has always done from the very beginning. And, that's what Perl6 is doing. Not just OO, but macros and grammars and function signatures and a lot of other things that have been seriously missed in Perl5.

Now, you may be thinking "I do perfectly fine without X in Perl." And, yes, you're right - you do perfectly fine. But, have you ever dipped into another language that didn't have hashes or regexes or lists that DWIM? In other words, have you ever written in C, Java, or Javascript^*? After working in Ruby for about a month, it's like pulling teeth to work in Perl5's OO. It feels clunky, wordy, and just plain too complicated. It literally feels like I'm back in ANSI C or Pascal. Heck, coming back to Perl5 from Ruby feels that way in nearly every sense. As a few people have put it on the Perl6 langauge list, Ruby is the closest we're getting to Perl6 until Perl6 is out.

*: Before you say that JS has hashes, it doesn't if someone changes Object.prototype anywhere at anytime, like the oft-used prototype.js library does.