| > Perl 6 depends upon the continued vibrancy of the CPAN community. Why do you say that? Is this a theoretical point, a reasonable conclusion based on reading about Perl 6, or something based on trying and failing to do something with Perl 6? > IMHO, CPAN is anything but vibrant by today's standards. Have you encountered problems that aren't being addressed? What do you make of the river cleanup effort[1] and the new metacpan?[2] > many [CPAN modules] are aging. Do you agree that "aging" that's due to modules continuing to work without needing to be changed (due to careful maintenance of backward compatibility and mass testing[3]) is actually a good thing even if it looks bad? Do you agree that the same "aging" point can reasonably be made about the module archives of Python, Haskell, Fortran and Rust? If not, what is/are the key difference(s)? > Fewer than 800 modules are known to exist for Perl 6. Do you agree this might be a good sign, reflecting the "lots built in" aspect of Perl 6? Are you aware that it's possible to use ordinary Perl 6 code with modules from Python, Ruby, Lua, Perl 5, etc.?[4] [1] http://neilb.org/2015/04/20/river-of-cpan.html [2] https://metacpan.org/about/meta_hack [3] http://stats.cpantesters.org/ [4] http://modules.perl6.org/#q=inline |