It’s far from obvious that playing with the name is likely to make things significantly better. Perl 6 has been P6 longer than Perl 5 had been P5 — or Perl Anything — at the time it was conceived. That’s not to say nothing should be done about it, but as some people have pointed out in the Github thread, there are important issues to be dealt with first. In the meantime, that would give an opportunity for anyone who is serious about the marketing side of things to do some actual research instead of guessing what we think might possibly help sort of.
> On 2019-Aug-12, at 11:57 am, Richard Hainsworth <rnhainswo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > There are is one statement in Eliza's original text that is not correct, and > several that are debatable. Here’s the original text quoted from LizMat's Github issue: https://github.com/perl6/problem-solving/issues/81 <https://github.com/perl6/problem-solving/issues/81> Perl 6 certainly started out as the next version of Perl 5 (hence the “6” in the name), and had Larry been able to see into the future, no doubt the marketing would have been different. And we should care about marketing, because Perl(s) exist in a market of programming languages, and if the product isn’t profitable (in a programming-language sense) then eventually there will by nobody left to develop and maintain it and write modules for it. Which would be a real shame. But of course you’re right that there needs to be a good reason for whatever course of action is chosen, and I don’t see what that reason is. -David
