When language designers talk about there being “one way to do it”, I think what they mean is that the language strives to have only one register. Of course, having multiple registers introduces cognitive burden to the user in selecting the appropriate register, and there should be a “safe default” register that users can use when a question is beyond their concern, shifting register only when they know they benefit from it. This is not always the case, unfortunately.
Fast programming is a distinct skill from software engineering. Software engineering principles don’t totally map over. Things like good organization and clear intent still matter a lot, of course, but a lot of SE theory is geared around how to continuously develop an existing codebase as part of a team. For example, I rarely write tests for my scripts. Setting up tests takes time, and setting up integration tests with fixtures (lots of my scripts are side-effect heavy) takes even more.
At the same time, rapid feedback is really important, even more important than with regular programming. I set up a small “jig” to quickly set up and exec the script in a small way.
Understandability also doesn’t matter as much. The programs are so small that if you stop understanding how it works, you can just rewrite it. And if you need to extend it, you can rewrite it “properly”.
I’m a little torn on how much you should use third-party dependencies in your scripts. Sometimes they’re really helpful, but they add a lot of project overheard, it’s another thing to learn, and many of them have horrible documentation. I guess dependencies that shore up flaws in the language itself are good, dependencies that keep you from needing to learn things are bad.
It has always seemed to me that Negroponte’s abundant digital optimism was rooted in a naive misunderstanding of what it means to be living in the early times. There is a habit among tech futurists to imagine that the future of a technology will be like the present, only much larger-scale, and with all the bugs worked out. But instead, it turns out that the technology’s future is barely like the present, because reaching a larger scale creates an entirely separate set of problems.