> This isn't the first time Perl6 has been 'production ready'
> No jobs
> no deep libraries
> no SDK support
> If we'd put 1/10 the time into minor improvements to
> perl5 over the past 15 years
I'm curious, what exactly are you talking about?
Here's how it was described in 2010:
Rakudo Star is aimed at “early adopters” of Perl 6. We know that it still has some bugs, it is far slower than it ought to be, and there are some advanced pieces of the Perl 6 language specification that aren’t implemented yet. But Rakudo Perl 6 in its current form is also proving to be viable (and fun) for developing applications and exploring a great new language. These “Star” releases are intended to make Perl 6 more widely available to programmers, grow the Perl 6 codebase, and gain additional end-user feedback about the Perl 6 language and Rakudo’s implementation of it. http://rakudo.org/2010/10/28/rakudo-star-2010-10-released/
In 2015, it's described as being in, "beta". http://rakudo.org/2015/11/28/announce-rakudo-star-release-20...
Although the gp doesn't post much, they are obviously a busy, respected, and influential member of the Perl community. I'm confused why they are so doom and gloom over this amazing new language (Perl 6) that is nearly a stable release.
Cf various rants by chromatic, eg http://www.modernperlbooks.com/mt/2013/02/goodnight-parrot.h...
That said, his recent comments on HN regarding this issue seem to only half the time making a cogent argument, and the other half the time being pithy snipes, and at this point I'm not sure he's not working with vastly outdated information.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8982742
(I find particular amusement in rereading Moritz's post in that thread.)
I would doubt anyone who claimed to be unbiased with his history
It's certainly possible that a mysterious GitHub error revoked my commit access late one night, but the timing seems suspicious. I'll own up to my mistakes, but the rewriting of history seems unfair.
With regard to you admitting bias? I don't recall specifically, we discussed it in depth a few times, so it could very well have been a feeling I left with and not a specific statement (and I'll fully admit I might have been projecting).
> I would doubt anyone who claimed to be unbiased with his history
What I meant was that was that anyone who has a complicated past where they feel misrepresented and that they were treated unfairly is bound to be biased in some way, and to claim otherwise would show a lack of introspection. It wasn't meant to be insulting, or something I thought you should feel the need to defend, it's more a general worldview of mine. Bias is hard to overcome and harder to eliminate. There's plenty of things I would like to think I'm unbiased about, but in reality I'm probably not.
I'm getting a strong feeling of Deja Vu. I think we may have had this discussion or one like it previously.