The hope for semantic HTML died the day they said "stop using <i>, use <em>", regardless of what the actual purpose of the italics was (it's usually not emphasis).

I'd take this a step further and say that the design flaws that motivated Perl6 were what really killed Perl. Perl6 just accelerated the timeline.

I do imagine a saner migration could've been done - for example, declaring that regexes must not start with a non-escaped space and division must be surrounded by space, to fix one of the parsing problems - with the usual `use` incremental migration.

Any statically-typed language has this. In pseudo-Java:

  class Parent {};
  class Child extends Parent {};
  class Wrapper
  {
      Parent foo;
  }

  w = new Wrapper();
  w.foo = new Child();

  evaluate w.foo;
  // static type: Parent
  // dynamic type: Child

... really?

Many words came to mind when I saw this warning, but nothing really adds to the incredulity of this one word.

Hmm, the is `type` the static type or the dynamic type, for languages where both apply?