You must decide if you want your career path to be a manager or a technologist. In most cases, there is valid career growth in either path but they are different paths because there are fundamentally different skill sets and inclinations involved. It is important to take a brutally honest introspective look at yourself to determine what you enjoy about your career and what motivates you.
Then, if you still really want to change to the managerial path, you must again be brutally honest with yourself as you try to figure out why that has not yet been an option. Usually a technologist starts to get opportunities to make this choice at between 5 and 10 YOE. It might be that you unintentionally are signaling to your management that your preference is to be a technologist either because of personality characteristics (your objection to being managed by those younger than you is a potential problem area) or obviously deep focus on technology. Figure out what is blocking you and fix it.
I understand where you are coming from with regard to being managed by those younger than you but take it from a technologist with over 30 years of experience, being a manager is not a function of seniority but of talent. As I mentioned before, management involves a different set of skills. You must evaluate managers for their talent at the activity and remove your bias based on their age. You may find that working for a young manager sometimes gives you the opportunity to lead and mentor them and help them become a better manager.
As others have mentioned, if you really want to move to the management path, you must communicate to others that is what you want. You do this explicitly by telling them and you do this implicitly by demonstrating interest and focusing on your behaviors.
Finally, I’ve noticed that it is very common for people to think that a natural and expected career progression goes from low-level worker to worker to leader to manager to director, VP and CEO. In technology, this is not the only case. Senior technologists are valuable stores of information and capability and there is a valid career progression for them which goes: low-level worker to worker to leader to senior and principal technologist to fellow to CTO. You still get leadership responsibilities but you don’t have the administrative responsibilities. It is important to note that your authority, in this circumstance, comes from a reputation for being knowledgeable and smart (influence), not from position.
Many industries use Perl 5 to keep things running. The semiconductor industry, in particular uses a lot of existing, and develops a lot of new, Perl code to do things commercial software cannot.
The language formerly known as Perl 6 is now called Raku so there are no more backwards compatibility issues.
Perl 7 is the new opportunity for backwards incompatibility (and probably doesn't even have an entry on Tiobe which would make your argument even stronger!)
Also, Tiobe is about as interesting as a gossip column. There are many reasons to pick one language over another, but ranking on Tiobe will never be one of them.
Packrat parsing is not an intrinsic aspect of PEG, nor does it increase memory usage. Further, the memory issue is more academic than real. If you are having memory issues, you will add intentional pruning to your parser to purge anything that comes before a point behind which you can not backtrack. Such points tend to exist in most computer languages. Yes, this is not a strict part of PEG but being academically pure when constructing a parser of any complexity leads to a short trip to madness. Perl 6's grammar construct is not pure to the PEG definition but it is a recursive descent grammar engine with all the bells and whistle you could want including functional components such as argument pattern matching which makes generic and reusable grammar expression a cinch.
Also, PEG makes having a context sensitive lexer not simply trivial but no effort at all because lexing and parsing are all the same process. It you want to have two different token-types for an INT-looking-thing at two different places in your grammar for, "reasons", you are free to do so. Try that in a discrete lex/parse style grammar.
Then, if you still really want to change to the managerial path, you must again be brutally honest with yourself as you try to figure out why that has not yet been an option. Usually a technologist starts to get opportunities to make this choice at between 5 and 10 YOE. It might be that you unintentionally are signaling to your management that your preference is to be a technologist either because of personality characteristics (your objection to being managed by those younger than you is a potential problem area) or obviously deep focus on technology. Figure out what is blocking you and fix it.
I understand where you are coming from with regard to being managed by those younger than you but take it from a technologist with over 30 years of experience, being a manager is not a function of seniority but of talent. As I mentioned before, management involves a different set of skills. You must evaluate managers for their talent at the activity and remove your bias based on their age. You may find that working for a young manager sometimes gives you the opportunity to lead and mentor them and help them become a better manager.
As others have mentioned, if you really want to move to the management path, you must communicate to others that is what you want. You do this explicitly by telling them and you do this implicitly by demonstrating interest and focusing on your behaviors.
Finally, I’ve noticed that it is very common for people to think that a natural and expected career progression goes from low-level worker to worker to leader to manager to director, VP and CEO. In technology, this is not the only case. Senior technologists are valuable stores of information and capability and there is a valid career progression for them which goes: low-level worker to worker to leader to senior and principal technologist to fellow to CTO. You still get leadership responsibilities but you don’t have the administrative responsibilities. It is important to note that your authority, in this circumstance, comes from a reputation for being knowledgeable and smart (influence), not from position.