From the documentation: "XML::Simple - An API for simple XML files" which is different than "A simple API" and is where much of the issue arises I suspect. XML::Simple is good (I understand) for configuration files where otherwise you might use .INI files or something similar.

However XML is a bad choice for configuration files anyway. In fact it's a bad choice for most things. JSON and YAML do a much better job in many of the situations where XML has been bent to fit. XML::Simple is fine in its intended role, but that role doesn't match the advertising on the box nor the expectations derived from similar boxes.

Thing is - I honestly believe that even for simple XML, it's still making more complicated code than the alternatives. We've got XML for all sorts of stuff - like config and API calls - it works well enough, although I would agree that for most, JSON or YAML are better (depending on precise circumstance).

The root of the problem I think is indeed - that people _don't_ read the doc, they just see "Simple" and install that and start hacking away

As GrandFather has already said, XML::Simple is good at dealing with simple XML and XML configuration files. Most of the XML that I have had to deal with was configuration files. Lots of software is guilty of using XML for this (just Google it).

But here's my problem - I don't think it is "good" at it. It's merely just about capable of dealing with it.

I too run into XML in all manner of places - config and API calls primarily. I've also been tripped over by places with annoyingly fussy change control, that inhibit additional module installation.

Problem is - there are no XML parsers on the core list. In either case, it's an additional install (which granted, may come bundled with an OS perl, thanks to dependencies - of which there are more for XML::Simple I think).

I have honestly yet to see a scenario where the XML::Simple answer was the 'better' one.