|laziness, impatience, and hubris|
I will herewith endure the usual expected firestorm of down-votes to express the personal opinion that “Perl-6” would have much-better been introduced to the world under any one of the various project code-names by which it was previously known during the many(!) years in which various competing(!!) implementation teams fought over it. Because, when the dust finally settled, the thing that they had actually come up with was “an entirely new language,” not any sort of “readily forward-compatible successor to” the language that had come before. Furthermore, it had a technically-confusing implementation stance: suddenly it had become a thing that was to be “implemented upon” a variety of different technical foundations – none of which it apparently could actually call its own.
(Quite a departure from the “iddy-biddy executable that ran like a bat out of hell” that we once knew and loved ... and that we still know today!)
And, if I may further extend my helmet (at this point, why not?) above the trenches, I would simply say that, while these various teams had been firmly locked in their own compartments of confusion, “Ruby had already, long ago (and far more successfully) ‘been there, done that™’” Ruby built upon Perl without once pretending to be Perl, and it has managed to achieve critical mass. Meanwhile, Perl-6 finds itself branded as a pretender.
I would therefore simply offer the following practical opinion: “‘Perl’ is ‘Perl-5’” In spite of the use of the registered-trademark with the blessings of the owner of that trademark, the Perl language has reached the same final end that was reached by other abortive language-extensions such as ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL, and for exactly the same reasons. “Time marches on.”
But, then again ... why did the “Perl-6” team ever seriously suppose that they needed to brand their brainchild as they did ... any more than the “COBOL-plus-plus” people ever conceived that they, too, could possibly make a difference? There are, in both cases, (probably) billions of lines of source-code written in both languages. Therefore, what’s the very worst thing that you could possibly do “to all that software?” Uh huh... “change the language!!” (However slightly.)
The “C++” team probably got it right: they never attempted to call their branchild “C 2.0.” Ruby, while deeply acknowledging Perl, never pretended to be its first-born son.
And now, let the downvotes begin ...