> and I conceive that although a Perl 6 name change might be best for Perl 5 today, it might not be best for Perl in the long run.
I politely dare to disagree. A name change will help both, and as I said especially the "Perl++" team will benefit.
And the longer members of your team propagate that it's "the next version" of Perl, you'll see tensions and/or ignorance growing.
> can surely come up with more creative and marketable names for its flagship products than simple sequences of small numbers.
Patrick, honestly I hate all these fantasy names without clear definition or at least intuitive or memorizable association ("phaser" as an exception has an understandable etymology). Try a poll here who actually knows the difference between Rakudo and Parrot. Thats part of this communication disaster.
I want to remind you that the official version number of Windows 2000 was NT 5 ! And I still don't understand how Delphi got such a stupid name - and always have to remind me that its Pascal.
If you would (like me) follow Python boards and see the frustration Ruby causes you might change your opinion about a fast major release of Perl5.
Look the guys in these other boards are in average at least 10 years younger than the usual Perl crowd. We are gambling the future away to become the new Cobol.
Anyway I started to answer you to offer you a way out of your frustrations╣ not out of combativeness!
Good luck! 8)
╣) ... and not of mine. Thankfully I have an exit strategy for the worst case to migrate to a language which is named with a clear association to a gem like Perl ...
In reply to Re^9: A wholly inadequate reply to an Anonymous Monk