LW says, "I've also seen what happens to other languages that change their name. They basically lose their branding, and have to start all over. I'm too Lazy to do all that work again. "
Sorry, you can't make your logic flow uphill like that. You're attempting to argue that, because branding is one reason to keep the name Perl, it is the only reason. But there are many reasons for keeping the name Perl, so you fall afoul of the Fallacy
of the Single Cause
He also says, "Plus there's a longstanding cultural assumption that major version numbers indicate incompatible changes, despite the recent trend for marketeers to pretend that great strides have been made when they haven't."
...but himself broke that assumption with prior perl's.
First of all, that's
the point. Whether I ever broke the assumption has nothing to do with whether it's a cultural assumption, or with whether it should
be a cultural assumption.
Second, the premise is arguably false in the case of Perl because all but one of the major transitions did, in fact, have incompatible changes on the binary and license levels regardless of the continuity maintained at the syntax level. And Perl 4 was majorly incompatible with Perl 3 in the sense that it was documented on dead trees. :)
But it's really hard to figure out exactly which other fallacies you're falling afoul of, simply because you don't actually make the argument, but just present what you think of as evidence and expect us to invent some kind of connection , somehow or other.
Or maybe it's one of these.
I can't tell unless you actually state the syllogism you want us to infer.
So basically, all this up-hill arguing leads me to believe that one of two things is likely to be true: either (A), you don't really know how logic works, or (B), you don't care because you are really trying to make an emotional argument about the pain you're feeling. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's (B), but if so, you really need to brush up your skills there, because there are much more powerful fallacies at your disposal than merely asserting provocative overgeneralizations.