I knew somewhat was going to comment on that :)

I don't count Lisp because it's such a radically different paradigm than Perl (though it doesn't have to be) that I don't think it translates that well. Plus, enough people have successfully ignored it that learning from it seems to be non-existent for many (despite how powerful it can be).

As for the late 80s, I think that's still relatively young in terms of coming to grips with the problem domain. Though one might think of Smalltalk, it flared and died. Perl has really carried the torch for full-fledged programming languages which are dynamic in nature and it has numerous flaws to go with its brilliant success. This is, in large part, because of how Perl came about and Python and Ruby are largely viewed as reactions to perceived weaknesses in Perl.

Of course, we can easily point out plenty of issues we have with Python and Ruby, but let's face is, Perl often has similar or different weaknesses. I think dynamic languages in general are still relatively young in terms maturity and general appreciation of what they can do. For example, MJD's marvelous HOP book has really opened a lot of programmer's eyes about how powerful functional techniques are and how easy they are to bring into dynamic languages. While others have understood this before, I don't believe it was as widespread before this, yet that's still a relatively new book.

I think we've barely scratched the surface of what these languages can do and we've not really come to grips (in a widespread manner) of how we can intermingle different paradigms and gain the benefits of them. Everyone's sitting in their camp and shaking their fist at others. I think Perl 6 will help out a lot here (it would be better with Parrot, but don't hold your breath) and potentially transform programming, but until then, popular dynamic languages are still learning their way.