Perhaps I am merely too dense to follow your argument, but, when you tell me that I am losing the competition which I have chosen not to take part in, then my obvious response is "I don't care if I am losing. I have chosen not to compete."
If you want any reaction other than that, then you must provide a reason to care about the competition.
When I said "eating our lunch", I was using a sales metaphor. It means that work and employment that could easily be ours goes to the competitor.
If we are here, we are probably Perl programmers. Maybe we also work. Maybe we also have a family to support and food to put an the table (not a metaphor this time). New money is not being spent on Perl. Global recovery is not even aware of Perl, in-so-far-as technology is involved at all (and I believe 90% of new spending is energy related) new technology spending is on Apple and Samsung products, not IBM PCs. Microsoft is no longer the largest company, and they rationalise their failure by redefining what they are about (desktop systems). Apple did not do that and look where they are. They did not dive up the fight and they did not refuse to compete on new territory.
But we do refuse. We still ally ourselves with MS and its demise.
There is a new world out there and we could be part of it. Perl still has a lot to say and is still relevant
You’re boostering for the opposite of what Apple did. Apple refused to compete on M$FT’s or IBM’s terms and hunkered down happily with a 6% market share. When pressed about what a failure Apple was, because y’all might not remember but everyone was calling them a failure for a long time, Jobs said: Apple’s market share is bigger than BMW’s or Mercedes’s or Porsche’s in the automotive market. What's wrong with being BMW or Mercedes? Perlmonks being a Fiat notwithstanding, refusing to compete on someone else’s terms or chase someone else’s game is the same. Perlmonks has *already* outlasted most of the Internet.