In January you complained about inappropriate use of quotemarks. I sincerely thought you would agree with the summary I put in quotemarks ("don't do nom, not needed, will take too long" -- quoting myself, not you). But when you objected I publicly apologized, respectfully, without caveat, and then shutup. Would you be willing to do the same for me? (Sans being quiet -- you told me I didn't need to quit posting, and besides, I enjoy your writing regardless of whether or not I agree.)
My respect for you, Larry Wall, Perl, Perl 5, Perl 6, #perl6, and PerlMonks is part of what drives me to try especially hard to get communication here right. But when I consider what's going on in this thread, I feel sad and frustrated.
In the specific case of Perl 6 being "production ready" it has reached a level of misunderstanding I find amazing. Some in this thread argue something to the effect that #perl6 should not worry about stability at all. I see their point. Others that until it's as stable as Perl 5, no serious user in her right mind would touch it. I see their point too.
To recap, my position is that Perl 6 can't possibly get to "production ready" status without first attracting a growing stream of serious early adopters at least a year or two before it gets there, and right now Perl 6 doesn't have that so this is a big issue. (To be crystal clear, I don't mean reaching Perl 5 levels of quality. I see that taking the best part of a decade, and most probably involving Perl 5 and 6 merging back in to just plain Perl.)
Please show me the specific things I have said, with context, that are leading you to think I was dishonestly suggesting something (if you wish, in private: firstname.lastname@example.org).
In reply to Re^3: Four Legs Good, Five Legs Bad