based solely on 'who I am,'

No, it's based upon the signal to noise ratio of your comment, as usual. For example:

Since Perl is a "pure interpreter," it is entirely dependent upon the language system's re-interpretation of the entire code body ... every single time that it is run. There is no "executable code" resource

Not true. I could name a few things that aren't purely interpreted and aren't interpreted at every run, such as POSIX or Encode or almost any crypto library or a speedy JSON or XML or YAML parser or....

You have no niceties such as use DBI; in that language.

Oh, good point. Put DBI in that list for your previous point too.

The Perl language has largely avoided such snares because, as a language, it is minimal.

Compared to PHP maybe, but if you read the grammar it's really not and if you read the Camel it's really, really not. You might be thinking of Forth or Smalltalk or Scheme if you're thinking of a minimal language. Even K&R C.

For one – and, only one – of my clients, this amounted to almost a quarter-million dollars of labor cost, spread among a number of people, to move the system to PHP-7 from PHP-5 while otherwise remaining almost exactly where it was. (No business-value gained ...) I taught the others how to continue using the PHP-5 system even as their (Linux ...) distributors "moved on."

You contradict yourself here, unless you truly believe that using a platform that's supported for things like bug fixes and security improvements represents no measurable business gain.

Perl created a lightweight and flexible way to interface with the standard binary libraries upon which we all ultimately depend, without embedding this directly into the compiler/interpreter.

I have no idea what this means.

This language is actually so flexible that it can re-invent itself on the fly. No other language that I have ever been aware of has ever been able to approach this level of magick without a preprocessor.

You should really learn something about a Lisp or a Scheme or a Forth or Smalltalk.