Until Perl6 is actually released, it doesn’t really matter what they call it.
(yes, I know they have functional snapshot builds, but as long as there’s not a final "6.0" (or "1.0") release, expect most devs to steer clear of it. Few people (masochists, mostly) want to use an ‘experimental’ programming language for important work).
> Until Perl6 is actually released, it doesn’t really matter what they call it.
> (yes, I know they have functional snapshot builds, but as long as there’s not a final "6.0" (or "1.0") release, expect most devs to steer clear of it. Few people (masochists, mostly) want to use an ‘experimental’ programming language for important work).
The “1.0” for the Perl 6 spec (6.c, because reasons) was released in 2015; the stable implementation in Rakudo was a little later but years ago. Current Rakudo has a stable, production-ready implementation of last year's 6.d version of the language spec. So we’re well past the threshold you suggest.
Then it should have been called "1.0". Calling it "DEFINITELY NOT 1.0" while deciding that that is secret P6 code for "really means 1.0" is awfully bad marketing.
(More seriously, slow performance, missing features, bugs, etc. were part of the reason for not calling it "1.0", but I would agree that to be really successful, the language needs a release that is called 1.0 and acts like it.)
6.c was described, both before and after its release, as being the “1.0” release of the Perl 6 language.
> More seriously, slow performance, missing features, bugs, etc. were part of the reason for not calling it "1.0"
No, they weren't.
The first “production-ready” release of Rakudo Star release was shortly after the 6.c spec release, in version 2016.01 (Rakudo Star uses date-based versions numbers.) If they were using semver-ish numbering for Star releases rather than dates, this would have been the 1.0 implementation (as opposed to spec) release.
(yes, I know they have functional snapshot builds, but as long as there’s not a final "6.0" (or "1.0") release, expect most devs to steer clear of it. Few people (masochists, mostly) want to use an ‘experimental’ programming language for important work).