|
|
|
|
|
|
by Qcombinator
2488 days ago
|
|
|
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.