Point the first: this is a non-sequitor. Once again, you're trying to claim it's primarily technical issues with the software, and I'm making the point that you just don't like Larry Wall. He's just not *one of us*. Why no gentleman would take swipes at Python's one-true-way.
Ascribing particular states of mind to me might well make your points easier for you to make, but it doesn't make them any good. I don't dislike Larry Wall — I've never met him — although I certainly think he says some silly things, and I don't care at all for the language that he wrote. And although I like Python I haven't used it in my day job for several years now; my workplace is a Groovy/Java/Scala shop.
If you were actually someone in management, would you listen to someone like yourself? Why?
Because I understand that despite what you seem to think, the technical challenges involved in language choice for larger software projects are about 1% "does the syntax of language x allow me to do y in this particularly neat way?" and 99% "how many keen programmers skilled in language x do I have/can I attract right now? how quickly can I bring a keen programmer unskilled in x up to speed? how performant, reliable and documented is the core language? how performant, reliable and documented are the 3rd-party libraries available for my problem domain? is there good 3rd party support in the form of testing, build tools, CI, IDE's, profiling tools, version control integration? will my codebase be maintainable by the current crew let alone new hires in 1 year? 5 years? 10?". Honestly if you think Perl is a legit contender in any of those fields against any of the language offerings from Oracle, Microsoft, Apple or Google you really need to get out more.
In the obvious trivial way all Turing-complete languages are "technically" equivalent in the limited sense that you want that word to mean, so there's really no point wasting time having the argument I imagine you want to have with me that goes like this: me: "oh, but Perl doesn't have such-and-such a feature" you: "of COURSE it does, you just cross the index and middle fingers of your left hand and recite the last verse of Genesis backwards!". I imagine I could have the same argument with a bash guru. FWIW even ignoring the to-my-eye horrendous syntax, the fact that for 25 years Perl evangelists have sung the praises of a language that has had such (ahem) eccentricities as braindead function declarations, lets-have-dynamic-typing-but-also-sigils, bolt-on-OO, a toy REPL, "my this our that" namespacing wtf, awful multidimensional data structures, idiosyncratic libraries ((badly) parsing XML to native datatypes, really?), ugly reference syntax (beating even C++ for homeliness, a miracle!), all the time hilariously making a big song-and-dance about "Easy things are easy" and "the principle of least astonishment" does not to my mind inspire confidence that those folks actually know what any other languages look like. 'Easy' isn't having a character-saving shortcut for some marginal use-case, it's having a language transparent enough that I get excited about the results and not how I got there. And that to me is the kicker - with all the language choices out there now, why are there so few significant new non-hobby projects being started in Perl? Clue... the answer is not "because kids are all stupid these days".
My problem is (and always has been) that Larry Has Opinions. And lots of those are expressed in such a heavy-handed manner: the language syntax, the intrusive keywords, the proudly gnomic and condescending tone that early on propagated down through Perl user groups, that they are off-putting
You see, this don't sound like a technical dispute to me.
Spoken like someone who's never managed a software development project bigger than themselves.
Of course it's a technical problem. Why buy into a tool and ecosystem with warts that piss more people off than the next tool's?
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.