While I agree that the silent failures and "opaqueness" can be off-putting, once you understand the tool and how to implement it in your workflow it is wonderfully efficient. Aside from being syntactically terse I haven't found any compelling reasons not to use it.
I've achieved a high level of expertise in Perl. Even though I can, I won't write complex Perl one liners; instead, I will write tested, documented utilities which someone who has not achieved such a level of mastery has a shot at grokking, maintaining and debugging.
Even better if I can write such utilities in a more modern programming language like Go or Rust, if the organization has personnel with expertise in such languages.
There is a school of thought in CS that equates terseness to bad programming practices. That is unfortunate. It is possible for software to be terse and well designed, and of course verbose solutions can easily morph into an unmaintainable nightmare.