Re: Are We Back to the "Wars" Now ?

On 11/21/24 4:56 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 10:12:18 -0500, Phillip Frabott wrote:
 

On 11/21/2024 02:22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 02:05:46 -0500, Phillip Frabott wrote:
>

On 11/19/2024 19:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 09:45:07 -0500, Phillip Frabott wrote:
>

I think the point that is being made by calling pipes a "temp files"
is that they are not persistent.

>
Named pipes can indeed be persistent.

>
Sure, but then your just creating a file with all the limitations that
come from that.

>
Not at all. It still has the same synchronization behaviour.
>

IPC only benefits you when you use unnamed or traditional pipes
(performance and resources).

>
Certainly not.

>
I guess it just depends on what you are doing.

 No it doesn’t. Named or not, pipes are pipes.
 

And in perspective, most pipes are generally used for small amounts of
data ...

 I have used them to transfer quite large amounts, quickly and reliably.

   Yep, WILL work. No question.
   The question is HOW MUCH should you intend to send back
   and forth using pipes (or any other method) between the
   parent and children.
   IMHO, keeping it 'minimal' is Better Programming ... but
   others may have different visions/needs/sensibilities.
   If you build things that need TOO much data passed
   around - do you REALLY want a parent/child sort of
   paradigm at all ? "One Big Pgm With Lots Of Globals"
   seems more sensible.