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

On 11/18/2024 05:46, Rich wrote:

186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

Hey, if I feel the need to use files instead of 'pipes' then I WANT
TO USE FILES INSTEAD OF PIPES.

 Except you did not say you were "using files instead of 'pipes'".
 What you said, in Message-ID: <hzSdnTUBKbG_YKv6nZ2dnZfqnPQAAAAA@earthlink.com>
was:
 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

...
>
   Pipes are good.
>
   But, really, they're just temp files the parent process can access.

 When reality is that pipes have not been "just temp files" since the
day's of MSDOS's fake "pipes", and for Unix systems, pipes have never
been "just temp files".
 And when challenged, you doubled down on the just temp files parts.

I think the point that is being made by calling pipes a "temp files" is that they are not persistent. When the computer is turned off they disappear (unlike files on hard (persistent) storage). Granted a pipe might re-appear later when the system is back up and running but my professor always said, don't expect any guarantees with pipes. They may be there, they may not be there, you might be able to use them one minute and they disappear the next. Consider them temporary aberrations until proven otherwise.
Chances are that the pipes of today are more solid then the pipes of yesteryear, but we've all grown up at different times with different states of computing and different upbringings. There are pros and cons to everything, including using files AND using pipes. To each their own.
I wouldn't argue about the small things like this.
--
Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------