I don’t think that there is such a notion as a “primary” programming language.

The number of hackers who work equally often and equally well in more than one language is drastically smaller than the converse. Primary programming language is the rule, not the exception. Perl is my primary programming language. I primarily program in Perl, as exclusively as possible, and would not be a hacker were that not the case.

Perl is most definitely my "primary" language, as well as by far, my favourite. Perl was the first language I learned, going on nearly 20 years ago now.

That said, I am equally well versed in Python, which I use at work for approximately 50% of my duties.

I'm very well versed with C# (requires me to use a search engine somewhat infrequently), and can easily code in and understand C and C++, but unlike Perl and Python, I'm no expert with these three.

I can get by in JS when I need to (Your Mother has provided me great guidance with this lang in the past), and I'm very experienced with two legacy custom languages at my $work that we have replaced with Python.

OP: Perl is a great first language. As others have stated, Perl programming jobs are for the very experienced anymore, and again, as others have stated, if you learn Perl, it really helps to build an understanding of several other languages (most notably imho, C), so it can be used as the starting block for you to branch out from as you gain experience.

Update: Besides, Perl has the most open, welcoming, helpful and polite community of any language out there. I've been a member of numerous forums over the years, and out of all of them, Perl-related boards, mail lists, communities, Perl easily takes the cake (Perlmonks in particular, but not necessarily specifically).

You are responding to a monk who showed us more than once* code here with // instead of # as comment separator.

His notion of "programming language" is _"different" ...

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

*) yes it happened. Very rarely, but it happened.

showed us more than once* posted code here with // instead of # as comment separator

Ah yes, the infamous quasi-Perl sketch with C++ comments which, of course, has not been corrected.

He seemingly prefers extemporaneous code and untested code to working, useful code.

I'd say I'm equally well in JS (the core language).

But it helped understanding one handful of differences, apart from this it's a simplified Perl with a Java syntax.

So in the end no big cognitive dissonance and your statement holds. =)

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

PS: i used to be quite productive in TCL, but forgot about everything after 15 years without contact.

I'm with you, as always, how could we differ being the same user. I will say that I'll bet you're approximately as behind on ECMAScript 2018 and the newest parts of its ecosphere as I am, but that goes without saying. I enjoy saying things though. That's the trouble really. And that my sedative addition prevents me from keeping my tongue in my mouth :P plus my amphetamine addition keeping me too I can't even to stuff it back in and tape it up or something.

Cold dead fingers and keyboards, oh, my.

Perl(-5) has rightly been called "the Swiss Army® Knife of pragmatic programming."

Only by you

It pays to be a generalist, not a specialist,

You are a generalist in the sense that, you know nothing about anything, rather than are weak on something in particular.

You are -- at the risk of repeating myself from a loong time ago -- a charlatan; a fake; a fakir(as in mendicant; for attention); a wastrel; a fraud; a con; an impostor; a shyster; a phony; a quack; a pretender; a cozener; in short, the epitomous snake-oil salesman.

The weird thing is you've been at this for 11 years (here; elsewhere for longer), and you've been known as such for almost as long; and yet, you still keep up the pretense.

Now, there are a few possibilities to explain your persistence:

1. You are clever.

   It had to be mentioned as a possibility; but obviously not.

2. You are stupid.

   Harder for me to discount; but there is some semblance of logic to some of what you write.

   What you write is (or more often: was) usually: vaguely, approximately, superficially; on topic: if you squint your eyes, suspend disbelief, and hark back to the prevailing winds of 30 years ago. Everything -- without exception -- that you proffer as wisdom; was cutting edge circa. 1985, and was rapidly and comprehensively discounted in the years -- <5 in most cases -- since. You apparently missed that memo.

   If you take it that about 10% of what you write is on-topic; and about 10% of that, was once considered a possibility; and 1% of that, was still being suggested as an alternative less than 20 years ago; and 10% of that you understood back then; and 1% of that you've ever actually applied in th field; and what remains is akin, but more dilute, than a Homeopathic Remedy. So dilute as to be nonexistent. But not stupid.

3. That leaves one possibility; the one we're not meant to mention -- at least if we mean it as a serious possibility -- for fear of crossing the PC boundaries.

   What they hay! This place is dead anyway.

   It -- the unmentionable possibility -- rhythms with: 'gentle senility'.

   If you are, you won't realise it, and won't defend it; if you aren't, and do, it shows your intent is malignant.

In short, you're obviously not clever; and it's questionable if you are stupid; which only leaves the latter alternative, and that looking harder and harder to discount.