> Moose, IMO, is a giant negative impact. It hugely increases the memory footprint of Perl. Our product cannot possibly use Moose because of this. And it has caused CPANhell ... Moose, Mouse, Moo and Mo.
OK. Notice that the problems you see with it are all due to limitations in the Perl 5 toolchain, p5p process, and Perl 5 CPAN culture. Perl 6 can't fix that. In the meantime, many Perl 5 folk have expressed thanks for Moose and other technologies derived from the Perl 6 project.
> It seems to me that testing was always a strength of Perl since way before Perl 6, so I don't understand what you mean by this supposed benefit of Perl 6.
Perl was pro-testing in the 90s but the Perl 6 project focus on it was a big part in the transformation of the Perl community take on testing to another level in the 2000s.
> Perl 6 is not that appealing to me.
Perhaps not for you. But, imo, for all the current anti-Perl5 and anti-Perl6 sentiment, over the next few years a lot of existing and potential Perl users will take to Perl 6 in much the way past users took to Perl 5.
> And although the Perl 6 language may be cool, the implementation (or should that be "implementations"? Why do something once if you can do it twice?) suck.
I see a very high quality implementation reaching maturity, with the one remaining major weakness -- the Parrot backend -- being sorted out this year. What about it sucks that isn't due to Parrot?
You can't stop folk spending their time doing what they want to do. There's a specification that anyone can see and several folk wanted to write a Perl 6 compiler so several were written. (That said, Rakudo is clearly the leader.) Volunteer time isn't fungible so what's the problem?