|P is for Practical|
You seem to be thinking that Moritz is suggesting you use or look in to Perl 6. I'm pretty sure he is not.
Yes, Perl 6 does aim to enable working from the high-level perspective you describe.
No, it's not worth you looking in to Perl 6 if you just want to get stuff done and don't care to have fun figuring out how it works and contributing to the Perl 6 effort by fixing and working around bugs and speed problems etc.
Moritz mentioned Perl6::Str. This is a perl 5 module he wrote that must be used by perl 5 scripts. It is one of several perl (5) modules written by perl 5 programmers who chose to use the Perl6 namespace in CPAN to reflect the module being somehow related to Perl 6.
To quote the Perl6::Str module description:
Perl 5 offers string manipulation at the byte level (for non-upgraded strings) and at the codepoint level (for decoded strings). However it fails to provide string manipulation at the grapheme level, that is it has no easy way of treating a sequence of codepoints, in which all but the first are combining characters (like accents, for example) as one character.
In summary, aiui: for production grade grapheme level handling, it's best to rely on perl 5, accepting all the intricacies and complications that inevitably arise; for some Perl 6 like features in perl 5 that attempt to hide some of that complexity (in trade for some loss of some magic and speed) you can consider Perl6::Str; and for the ideal simpler Unicode handling scenario you described, there's no better prospect than Perl 6 but it's not yet ready for most users and use cases.
»ö« . o O ( "the celebrity tell-all of the Perl-6 cult?" )