* Expand around the languageI find it interesting that the slightly longer and more complicated political process in Java, allows the core changes to be made to the langauge, and teh constraints therein. Which is an interesting approach that I will really need to think more about. Since it may not be a simple one-to-one and onto mapping that people with strictly typed languages have an urge to support burningShrubbery...
* Conventions in lieu of changing the language
* Constitutionalisms that change the language
As an argument of working around the process of actually changing what is allowed in the language is the discussion about Objective-C's approach, in which there are conventions, that are not constrained at the compiler level, and so can be, well, skipped over in a whole lot of ways.
Then there is the problem of allowing a CPAN madness - where there are all of these modules that solve various issues. Some of them become 'dual life' modules, in that they are delivered with the core modules, just like java and Objective-C do, but they can also be released on their own... But in the Perl Culture, there is this allowance for more than one way... Which leads to multiple ways of adding functionality, since you can just add one more module to the CPAN....
What I do not find in this simple outline of the topology, is the knee jerk response as to which is teh oneTrue and only way that bettyBowers would code... Since clearly if bettyBowers supports it, God will support ONLY that way....
While I think that these three different approaches to the problem DO help define a part of how different coders look at the problem of why they fit and play well with their 'language fetish', unlike those who are clearly in league with the EvilOne...