> My point is that while it > started out as a way to improve/formalize Perl 5, it's developed > sufficiently to the point where it is its own language and not the > "next" version of 'perl'.
But it is still a version of Perl. It might not be the "next" version of Perl, but it certainly the sixth version of Perl. If you think that the difference between Perl 5 and Perl 6 is too big to still call Perl 6 "Perl", then compare some early FORTRAN code to idiomatic Fortran 2008 code. On 05/25/2012 03:44 PM, B. Estrade wrote: > Rebranding this as a new language is one step in the right direction. > Having the language called the same thing as whatever the defacto > reference implementation is would be a nice way to go. But it's more > than just a name to me, it's a signal saying that it's okay to stop > thinking of Perl 6 in terms of Perl 5 - and therefore it won't be > necessary to unlearn what I already know and love; rather, it'll allow > me to tap into the part of my brain that is willing and ready to learn > new languages. > > Perhaps simply renaming the specification (OpenPerl?) and allowing the > reference implementation (Rakudo) to take center stage. All those people who propose a rebranding assume that a good name will just be found with a bit of thought. So far I haven't heard a single good one. (OpenPerl? I don't think Perl 6 is more open than Perl 5 on any measurable level; and if it is, it's not the main difference) And no, Rakudo is not "the" and not even "a" reference implementation. It is an implementation, period. There's nothing that makes it more "official" or "reference" than Niecza, for example. Just like GCC is not more "official" or "reference" to C than is Clang, ICC, TCC or whatever.
