I use nearly of these tools with the exception of Perl. I go to great lengths to make sure I have access to them because it's so critical for quality of life. I love them and I understand why people love them.
Here's the reason: these languages/tools are tactically very powerful. Tactics are immediate and decisive. Tactics are effectively tricks in the sense that if you can "spot the trick", you can -- with a tiny amount of work -- reduce a formidable problem to virtually nothing. Having a vast toolkit that facilitates such tricks is incredibly powerful and makes you appear to have superpowers to colleagues who aren't familiar with them.
But tactics are definitionally short-term. You deploy them in the weeds, or at least from the forest, (hopefully) never from the skies. Tactics aren't concerned with the long term, nor how things fit together structurally. They are not concerned with maintainability or architecture.
This is why it isn't actually that important that you can cobble together a 15 line Perl script in an hour to do something that would take any of your colleagues a week. Years from now, when you are gone and someone runs into a similar but slightly different problem, someone will find your Perl script, not understand it, and rewrite it all in Java anyway. Or assume it's too hard and give up. Maybe they will adapt your Perl script, but more likely it'll be seen as a curiosity
It sucks, because there is beauty in that approach of solving problems. As I said in another comment, I wish there were more diversity in tooling and languages. But at the same time, it's important to consider that people are fundamental. All of this is in service to that. And I personally would rather build software that people use over the long term.