First off, your title. I disagree. TIMTOWTDI, and, by definition, they're correct - for some situations, and not all of them are applicable to a given situation. There are "solutions" that never work, but I don't classify those as ways to do it, but ways one thinks you can do it. Perl still generally has many ways to do any given task, and this is just counting the ones that work.

Second, as I've said before, the flexibility in perl actually works well in the reverse. In C++ or Java, one presumes that the author of the framework or reusable object (or, in C, reusable ADT - feel free to extend ad nauseum to other languages) is the most intelligent person, and lesser persons use them. For cases like the Standard Template Library, this may very well be true. For most other reusable software, well, maybe not.

In perl, due to the DWIMery of the language itself, its pure dynamic structure, you can actually have a module written by someone with less than 12 months of experience be used in ways they didn't imagine by someone with 6 years of experience, mostly because the original author didn't check parameters very well.

I take this flexibility that Anno complains about exactly the opposite way.

Besides, I've been known to hack C++ header files to change functions from private to public just because they never should have been private in the first place, IMO. Does the fact it's C++ make me, the end-programmer, any more trustworthy? ;-) (I was a student programmer at a small software development company at the time... I'd be very careful before trying it again, but I just wanted to point out how easy it is to hack those other languages in non-trustworthy ways, too.)