The Perl 6 naming debate has started again. And I guess with good reason. Teaching people that Perl 6 is a Perl, but not the Perl requires too much effort. Two years ago, I didn’t believe. Now you’re reading a tired man’s words.
I’m glad that this time, we’re not discussing giving up the “Perl” brand, which still has very positive connotations in my mind, and in many other minds as well.
And yet, I can’t bring myself to like “Rakudo Perl 6” as a name. There are two vary shallow reasons for that: Going from two syllables, “Perl six”, to five of them, seems a step in the wrong direction. And two, I remember the days when the name was pretty young, and people would misspell it all the time. That seems to have abated, though I don’t know why.
But there’s also a deeper reason, probably sentimental old man’s reason. I remember the days when Pugs was actively developed, and formed the center of a vibrant community. When kp6 and SMOP and all those weird projects were around. And then, just when it looked like there was only a single compiler was around, Stefan O’Rear conjured up niecza, almost single-handedly, and out of thin air. Within months, it was a viable Perl 6 compiler, that people on #perl6 readily recommended.
All of this was born out of the vision that Perl 6 was a language with no single, preferred compiler. Changing the language name to include the compiler name means abandoning this vision. How can we claim to welcome alternative implementations when the commitment to one compiler is right in the language name?
However I can’t weigh this loss of vision against a potential gain in popularity. I can’t decide if it’s my long-term commitment to the name “Perl 6” that makes me resent the new name, or valid objections. The lack of vision mirrors my own state of mind pretty well.
I don’t know where this leaves us. I guess I must apologize for wasting your time by publishing this incoherent mess.