To me it’s not unlike spending all of a thread about Clojure commenting on Java or Common Lisp without even bothering to mention or contrast to Clojure.

There are connections to both but that doesn’t necessarily make them topical.

I disagree that discussing a previous language by a designer (often in terms that seem to conflate equivalence) is usefully relevant to discussion of a different language by that designer.

Note that I have never said that there is zero utility. I just find it tiresome to encounter comments about Perl syntax as if it is automatically useful or interesting to discussions about Raku.

Which is why I took the time to provide an example of what (I would consider) an actually relevant mention of Perl syntax.

> Changing the name to Raku doesn't obliterate Perl 6's history as Larry Wall's successor to Perl 5.

Further than that, the name change only happened after it already had at least one official release under the "Perl 6" name.