At first I was afraid this was just a thin wrapper around osascript, but when I saw the XS interface, I tried it despite the sparse documentation, and was pleased to be able to significantly decrease lag in my application when issuing rapid-fire script events. Simple but useful.
BKB: Is that all ? Would you give a correct implementation of backgammon or chess one star if you found them boring ? Your rating would be more helpful if it reflected how well the module matches its advertising, not your taste in games. This is a library, not a fancy GUI.
If this was an attempt at humor, you should be aware that (due to an apparent bug in CPANRATINGS) giving a module its first rating and then clearing the rating does not clear the summary rating on the front page, so you could do permanent defamatory damage to the module even if you intended only temporary humor.
BKB: It does use Moose's syntax and infrastructure for object inheritance (see the "extends" ?).
D::V::C::Email and friends do not exist in a vacuum. The value of a validation system does not necessarily derive from its implementation of validators but from the unified interface it provides. To me, the fact that ::Email uses a five-star validator in three lines of code is far superior to yet another potentially-faulty implementation in any number of lines.
BKB: An inconsistent review can very well be unhelpful. If you speak highly of a module in the text but rate it poorly numerically, you are being confusing at best and duplicitous at worst. Either quality merits "unhelpful" in my view.
Note: since BKB has cleared his / her rating this comment is no longer expected to be useful.
BKB: That Moose doesn't pass all its tests for you is unfortunate. However, if the failing test(s) had never been written and Moose installed fine while still technically containing a bug (if it does), would you ever have noticed ? (Try forcing install and finding out.) You seem to be punishing Moose for having a zealous test suite, not for any real defect you've found in its behavior.
It is also curious that you would award three stars to Lingua-Flags, which you say also fails its tests, but here only one, apparently without evaluating Moose's behavior yourself.
Well, it's past September 2005. Would it be possible to have this finished at some point ? I got rather excited about it when I saw it in PBP, but if it remains here in this state it's not much better than a lot of other placeholder modules (it's a little better, because it lists alternatives).
OK, that was a useless review. Really, though, XML::Simple, though not general-purpose, has saved me so much time and has done The Right Thing so many times that I could hardly imagine coding without it.
BKB: installation problems are not IMHO a good reason to give one star to a module: they could be caused by a problem with MakeMaker or your installation. The place for these comments is in the bug reports, with a detailed report of the failure: your rating is of no value to the author and of almost none to users. That, I think, is why even people who don't use the module can justifiably rate your comment unhelpful; if you take this as a personal attack, communication just breaks down further.
Can't comment on its usefulness, but note that some distributions (notably Debian) which call this library libdumbnet require including 'dumbnet.h' instead of 'dnet.h' and linking against 'libdumbnet' instead of 'libdnet'. A symbolic link and two -l changes in the Makefile sufficed for me.
It would be nice if this module would inherit from XML::SAX::Base or otherwise provide things like set_handlers() so that it could be used in an XML::SAX::Machines Pipeline. It's too inconvenient at this stage, although that simple change could make it quite useful.