Your comment lacks context. Do you mean parseability of perl has never been a goal of perl? If you read the article, you'll see it was the goal of the author, which is why he wrote this proof. So I'm not exactly clear what you're trying to say.
The point the grand parent was making seems to me to be rather simple. He says that the designers of Perl (not the author of the article) didn't consider parseability of Perl an objective, since they focused more on making a scripting language for humans.
Of course the author (and many others) would have liked if Perl was statically parseable since a lot of static tools like documentation require this to be complete.
So it just shows that maybe static parseability should have been an objective of the Perl designers or any other language designer in the future.