If that's changed, you should probably go update that. "Pre-release" is generally understood as a synonym for "not complete", right? There's no complete, finished implementation of the Perl 6 spec, right? Is the spec itself finished?

It's like you can't say anything about Perl (either one) on Hacker News, not even mildly complimentary things, without someone jumping on perceived slights.

If that weren't against Wikipedia policies, I would. Then again, I don't consider Perl 5 "complete" either, whatever "complete" means.

> There's no complete, finished implementation of the Perl 6 spec, right? Is the spec itself finished?

No to both, but why does that matter? There'll be a Perl 6.1 spec and a Perl 6.2 spec and so on. Meanwhile, people who find a Perl 6 implementation usable for their purposes will use it and people who don't won't. Fortunately, every release is more usable to more people.

As for "pre-release", I don't believe in playing linguistic existential games. Software exists or it doesn't. You've released it or you haven't. It does something or it doesn't. Perpetual betas and alphas and pre-releases and unstable versions and (even) release candidates are for people who lack the courage to release good software.

As for "perceived slights", insinuating that Perl 6 doesn't exist or isn't useful because the spec isn't "complete" (whatever that means) or no single implementation is "finished" (whatever that means) or no one has said "This particular release of this particular implementation is stable for every domain and every purpose and everyone who might ever want to use it" is awfully silly and (in my mind) deserves a challenge.

As long as the official language specification refers to Perl 6 in the future tense, I will as well. Take it up with Larry Wall.

For those of us who don't play linguistic existential games, BTW, Perl 5 has been "done" since 1994. I think most of us recognize that you can continue maintaining and updating software after it's done/finished/released. It appears the Perl 6 community has been innovative in the discovery that you can release software before it's done or finished and go Derrida on someone's ass for implying that an incomplete implementation of a draft specification is, in fact, incomplete.

chromatic's pedantry is a symptom of people like us ignoring the fact that even a language like TeX will only be done when the author decides it's done (Knuth's death for example). That and he's a grumpy-butt sometimes. Perl6 is a fully-functional language in that you can write useful (for some value of useful) scripts in it. The specification is undergoing radical changes, but then as I've pointed out the Perl5 specification is undergoing changes that some consider "radical" (if you doubt this, read threads on perl5-porters sometime ... look up the debate(s) about the "feature" pragma).

Valid complaints about Rakudo being an unfinished implementation of Perl6 are better centered around things like it doesn't pass 100% of the Spec tests yet. The Rakudo developers will (I'm pretty sure) own up to this, and point to the fact that they're working hard on it and that patches are welcome. That doesn't mean that Rakudo * was in some way "Pre Release". I don't recall anybody using the term "Pre" when talking about the Rakudo * release. The terms I remember are "early", "useful", "useable","for developers". If we as non-members of the Perl6 community go about continuing to imply that Perl6 is somehow less than released in a way for developers to generate useful and usable applications, we're gonna have the grumpier members of the Perl6 community call us on it.

It looks to me like you have a unique opportunity to contribute most effectively to Perl6 moving from being what you consider pre-Released to Released. You can submit a doc patch to change the tense in the Perl6 documentation.

Whether a software project is release-quality or not is a rather basic concept to everyone else. It can be intellectually tempting to try and deconstruct these basic concepts, but more often than not it's an exercise in evasion rather than illumination. Perl 6 (or Perl 6.0.0 for the pedantic) is a work in progress--at some point in the near future, the spec and implementations will be "done" to a point where everyone will agree that this is Perl 6.0.0, every implementation that matches the spec and passes the tests is Perl 6.0.0, and work will begin on Perl 6.1. Perl 5.0.0 reached that state in the past--16 years or so in the past to be precise. There's a distinction here that's dishonest to evade.

If the Perl 6 community is more interested in using linguistic evasion and deconstructing the concept of the finished release more than they're interested in actually making a finished release though, I'd best leave it to them. Maybe this is what Larry Wall meant about the postmodernism. Who knows? My mind is still blown by the observation that you have to doubletalk your way around the idea that Perl 6 hasn't reached 6.0.0 final yet.

Actually, I clarified what I meant in a previous post, when I characterized Perl 6 implementations as "incomplete implementation[s] of a draft specification". I didn't say it didn't exist, just that it exists in a non-final, pre-released state. Some people call them betas, some people call them release candidates, some people call them pre-release, and you try to cleverly evade the fact that every Perl 6 implementation is an incomplete implementation of a draft spec, but a rose by any other name and so forth.

I actually expect that some Perl 6 implementation will meet a finished 6.0.0 spec within the next 5 years. But none does currently. Which is a roundabout way of saying "it's not done yet", which is apparently doubleplusungood to state so directly.

I got into this trying to say good things about Perl. I guess you've shown me the error of my ways. If I'm going to have everything I say about Perl on Hacker News trolled by defensive Perl fanbois, I might as well trot out the old "explosion in an ASCII factory" joke again.

Edit: The problem is, you're seeing criticism where there was really none there. All I made was a statement of fact--Perl 6 isn't done yet. I've even clarified what I meant by "not done yet"--the spec is draft and the implementations are incomplete even against that spec. I think that's a reasonable definition of "not done yet", don't you? I never said anything about how long it's taking or whether implementation and spec will ever meet, you just projected those criticisms onto me because you're defensive about the issue. That's bad faith. Fuck, man, I even said Perl 6 would be done in the near future! How the hell do you get from that to projecting "I don't believe any implementation of Perl 6 will ever meet the 6.0.0 spec" onto me? Are you even reading my comments or am I talking to myself here?

Meanwhile, over in non-Perl-world, other people are (sometimes innocently, sometimes idly, sometimes maliciously) perpetuating these idiotic toxic "perl is X" memes which just poison the ecosystem for rational argument (in my opinion).

So you stepped into a minefield with good intentions, my thoughtful friend. But if I were on the Perl 6 team, I would be so frustrated by others out there who have this perverse obsession with what other people are doing, what other people are using, what other people are building.

It's not healthy, but regretably, it's also often very mean-spirited and has all the social utility of gambling on a cock fight.

I love what Perl has become, what the Perl community is, what the Perl 6 people are building, the UNIX-y culture, the spirit of adventure. It's really cool, and for those who don't get it, and don't want to, just move on (not you Phil).

Nonsense; even the release announcements say that directly.

All I made was a statement of fact--Perl 6 isn't done yet.

I wouldn't have objected if you'd written that. Characterizing software we've released on schedule for almost three years running as something thrown out in the world incomplete, ahead of an "official" release (whatever "official" means) is, I believe, incorrect and unhelpful.