I think that has more to do with solving a given problem in more than one way, or using a different syntax (From the available ones) to solve a problem.

Sure. But don't forget that CPAN modules cound to "avlailable ones".

What I'm speaking is more on the lines of using 10 different ways of class declarations, or switch statement declarations, each one looking different than the other. Thats a lot different than the TIMTOWDI philosophy.

I don't see the difference at all.

Perl 5 has no class keyword, so people invent their own mechanisms, upload them to CPAN, and then there's more than one way to do it.

Over time, one or two prove to be universally useful (seems to be Moose), and emerges as a quasi standard.

And is not good either.

No? I like the result. I'm pretty sure Moose is better than what would have come out if p5p had decided to build the one true object system in perl 5 core.

Perl may offer flexibilities to use various kinds of syntax to solve a problem. But it provides only one way to write a particular syntax.

Really?

say $x if $x > 0;
if $x > 0 {
   say $x;
}
[download]

That's two ways to write an if. Does it hurt Perl?

But it provides only one way to write a particular syntax.

Even if it were true, that's still besides the point. Various OO modules use different ways to write something to achieve (nearly) the same semantic (and not syntax). And that's exactly what timtowtdi is about.

Update: Your reply sounds like "timtowtdi is fine, but not in this case". And I agree that it's a good idea to supply a good default way of doing it, so that people don't feel lost, and consistency is achieved. But since it's usually not clear from the beginning what the default should be, we need many ways to do things in order to later pick a good default. Even for seemingly simple things like class declarations.