Because I think you're untrustworthy.

I've promised myself that I would refrain from replying to anything you say. Because you accuse people with love of Perl, and Perl 6 in particular, to always get personal, ad hominem. Since you clearly are getting personal here, I feel freed from my promise to reply to your comments.

Stuff happened in the past. Things didn't go as planned. It took way longer than anybody anticipated. Some people kept going on when others gave up on the idea.

But, now we have not one, but at least 2, possibly 4 viable versions of Perl around. Diversity is good. TIMTOWTDI.

Can we please, please, look towards the future instead of mulling about the past?

Thank you in advance.

Because I think you're untrustworthy.

.oO ( What does it mean when even rhetorical questions get hostile answers? )

I've seen many beautiful exchanges here at PM reminding me of the importance of putting judgment aside if one is to hear what someone else is saying. Hopefully I've been able to understand your perspective in this exchange. Hopefully you understand why I'm wondering, not for the first time, if your interpretation of what I write is dramatically colored by your judgment of me.

That's all very convenient to your argument, retconning the P6 project manager as giving deliberately unreliable schedule advice

Nat gave good advice. I feel you are twisting his words and now twisting mine.

Larry's original estimation was incredibly unrealistic.

It turned out to be incredibly unrealistic. The project ended up not only seriously missing the original timeline but the entire effort, from start to 6.0, managed to take longer than even the decade gestation period that seems common among other arguably similar language efforts.

You'll throw anyone who left the project under the bus if it prevents you from having to consider that anyone still involved with the project has ever made a mistake.

Perhaps you so distrust me, and feel so much contempt for me, that you don't care to be reasonable, but I'm going to stay the course for this, my last comment in this thread.

I don't see how me defending Nat leads you to think I'm throwing him or anyone else under the bus. I hope that everyone still involved in the project has been and still is making mistakes because that would mean they're human and they're learning.

Would you care to explain "we expect to have alpha code a year from now" and the P6 team's repeated failure to give estimates longer than "18 months away" or "alpha code by next summer's YAPC" for several years?

I've said my piece about Larry's words up-thread.

I participated in mailing list discussions in the early years (I think 2001-2004 or thereabouts), read Piers' reports, that sort of thing. I didn't pay much attention to YAPCs. I mostly missed Audrey's 2005-2007 involvement. I don't recall seeing the estimates you speak of. I do recall the amusing quip of "By Christmas". I'm happy to leave enthusiasm unexplained anyway and will leave analysis of it to you.

Since around 2000 I had the overall impression P6 would get done if Larry had enough patience and energy left and contributors cared to keep contributing. Now it's here I don't see the point in taking a negative view of the past. Learn from mistakes, sure, but apportion moral blame? Why?

(Btw, those were rhetorical questions.)

Hopefully I've been able to understand your perspective in this exchange.

I don't believe you've ever understood my perspective. For example:

apportion moral blame?

Weren't you just complaining about twisting words?

I participated in mailing list discussions in the early years (I think 2001-2004 or thereabouts), read Piers' reports, that sort of thing. I didn't pay much attention to YAPCs. I mostly missed Audrey's 2005-2007 involvement. I don't recall seeing the estimates you speak of.

I was on the core design team from 2003 to 2011. I edited Piers's reports for Perl.com. I went to YAPCs. I pair programmed with Audrey in Toronto.

I took notes for every design and status meeting I attended for 8 years. (I counted once; there were enough words in those reports to fill multiple versions of the Camel.)

You will not convince me—and I will correct the record when you try to convince others—that the original delivery plan was anything other than 18 months, that that 18 months figure was repeated frequently, and that there were no serious or successful attempts within the project leadership to deliver a solid, reliable product within that time period.

The closest we came to that was Allison's push to stabilize and release Parrot 1.0.

So you've done a LOT for Perl 6. For which we can only be thankful.

Yet, you were one of the few, if not the only one, who removed themselves as contributor to Perl 6, and who refused to be named in the list of contributors of Perl 6 when Perl 6 was released in December 2015.

Why?