[Grinnz]

The original proposal for Perl 7 was good at grabbing attention, but not good at being something that could reasonably be accomplished by the current set of core developers - it would require either maintenance of two forks of the language (not feasible), or sunsetting of Perl 5 (risking it all on unlikely adoption and migration to the new fork, and likely losing several volunteer developers).

The current status is, roughly, planning for Perl 7 to be a compatible release with good features, and waiting until such a featureset is ready. See https://perl7faq.grinnz.com

[kbenson]

The way I read it (which might have been reading between the lines), is that whatever 5.3x was released with Perl 7 would be the last in that line, but it would never die, and just get bug fixes.

I viewed Perl 7 as a way to break from the expectations of the two types of existing Perl users. Those that use it for stuff they expect to continue working without fail in perpetuity, relying on Perl's exceptional forwards compatibility, and those that are willing to break that to usher in new features that are long overdue.

At work we have Perl in production that's well over two decades old, and all stages in-between because it's always been the core language of our department. The expectation that it "just works" for the most part on newer OS distro releases with newer Perl is extremely valuable to us. At the same time, new development in it has gotten more and more cumbersome over the years, both in relation to other options and in itself, as modules for newer services and APIs are less likely to be available and well maintained.

Perl 7 as an idea was exciting to me because I viewed it as a way to both satisfy the needs of the job I'm in (through a static Perl 5 version), and also my personal tastes by allowing Perl to evolve and change as needed, and add some long overdue features (or even just change defaults to be sane for the current time).

[Grinnz]

You were reading between the lines, and the initial announcement was writing between them. But like I said, it is not feasible to maintain a LTS Perl 5 next to a fork of the interpreter. The actual proposal was only even to maintain Perl 5 for a few years before sunsetting it. CPAN would not have been compatible with Perl 7, it would require a separate ecosystem of code and installed libraries. The ideas sound nice but I don't think a lot of people would have been happy with how the details would have worked out. Most of the problems you're talking about are more a deficiency of perception and tooling, and these can be addressed without such drastic measures.