Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you really don't know what Perl 6 is, and are incorrectly inferring from some statements here that you "can run perl 5 code in perl 6" what that means, and what it's purpose is (library support, utilizing the massive amount of CPAN modules that already exist). Perl 6 is not Perl 5, in the same way an iPad isn't still an Apple ][. Other than that, the main problem I see is you taking a lot of opinion on what y…
I think you're talking about other people's comments, not mine. I realize that you might be used to talking with those people, but it doesn't really have much to do with what I write. My statements have more or less nothing to do with Perl. (Please let that sink in.) As far as my "understanding" of Perl 6. According to http://perl6.org/compilers/std-viv "The Perl 6 standard grammar is written in Perl 6, and specifies…
1) You seem to be making an argument for some future language. That it would drop many of the things the make Perl Perlish is presupposed as what "people" would want. It would keep the name, as you state, because it would be the same community of people. The community of people that would keep the Perl name are not the same "people" you refer to that after their complaints are fixed would result in a Perl that is not Perlish.
2) If you are just talking about some abstract future language not actually related to Perl, don't use the Perl name. All you are doing is getting people riled up because you are attributing views to them (as the actual Perl community) that they disagree with. Again, I think this can be attributed to you taking a more abstract approach to what you are saying, but choosing to use concrete names, such as Perl, and doing so in the comments of an article about a new Perl release. People here would likely engage you gladly if it was obvious it's just a thought experiment about some futuristic language with nothing to do with Perl, including the name (although there would be challenges as to what you believe are the best features for this new language).
3) You presuppose it's a solved question of what's "best" for specific language features. For example, longer more explicit keywords, very simple to explain, very easy to read by a someone who doesn't know it. These are all good things when you try to maximize learning by novices. One could argue that at the same time, they don't really even allow experts. We have domain languages because they allow us to be more concise and accurate in our definitions. This necessitates learning the domain language, but I think few would argue that the hassle outweighs the future benefit to chemists, physicists, lawyers, engineers and architects to learn the specifics of the domain languages and representations they've developed. As a simple example, look at Ten Hundred Words of Science[1]. I admit it's probably useful to get laymen to understand a topic in general, but is it always sufficient to explain the specifics of that topic in the precise way it requires? Should experts in the field converse with each other this way? Should new bodies of work attempt to use this in the future instead of the domain languages they have developed? It's important to see these for what they are, tools used to shift focus towards or away from specific attributes. It's all a matter of perspective and what the goal is.