http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=278327

Alternative title: Modulism - Code Bigotry

When scanning CPAN in that "Surely there's a better way" mode, I use some heuristics (read:prejudices) which roughly sort modules into the good, the bad and the kooky.

I'll search in the problem area, pop tabs for each module, then kill tabs based on the feeling I get from the docs. I'm talking about modules that do address your problem, but in such a poor way that you're better off without them.

I'm interested other peoples red-flags during this initial appraisal. Obviously, they're not absolute and will vary according to the general problem and specific context.
Update: The answers so far have largely been too sensible and rational. Express your inner bigot.

To start out, here's some I've managed to untangle from that "blargh" reaction.
Red Flags:

  • It has a "send email" option.
  • Or more generally, the "but wait there's more..." interface. I can use the Extra::SteakKnife module myself, thanks.
  • It's general purpose templating ignorant.
  • Names like EZBlah, or HTML::* (Well, I am more skeptical in the HTML:: namespace than in B::)
  • Tied tightly to a given architecture/set of modules. Double red-flag if I'm anti the prerequisites.
  • The language is uncomfortable with perl terms: we pass in what is known as a "Hash Reference"...
It's not all bad, the above often have converse green flags. Here's some more:
  • Notes on portablility, standards compliance.
  • Intelligent notes on bugs, limits, caveats, subclassing
  • Version numbers and updates, some features marked still experimental.
  • Super-star author.
  • XS version of some critical routine
So what have I missed?