On 9 April 2014 09:10, FRIGN <d...@frign.de> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:47:14 -0400 > Calvin Morrison <mutanttur...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What is the benefit of using a C program? For me it would be easier to >> implement sane flags, but I am lazy. bash makes it easy to prototype >> and run with a very small feedback loop and low boilerplate to product >> ratio. > > Well, every time you run a shell-script you launch a sub-shell, import > all environment variables and, most importantly, depend on the > shell-implementation. > Using C on the other hand, you are able to optimize the program even > more (shell is good for prototyping, but not for long-term-usage if you > have the time to port it to C). > The only reason to use a shell-skript is if you write things that often > need to be changed (like configure-skripts, Makefiles, ...) or if you > depend on shell-functions (which sometimes is pretty neat). > > The dead simple lock-software you propose is almost as dead simple to > write in C. I guess you could even stay at the same SLOC or a little > bit more.
Fair enough I think I will implement it in C at some point then. >> I don't see another option. Even using poll, you're still somewhere >> checking every x interval if the directory is gone. > > That depends on the implementation. I wonder why the Kernel-folks > didn't partially implement poll() using inotify. > This way, you would both be able to write POSIX-compliant software and > benefit from the nive inotify-interface. > Doesn't i-notify work via some polling in itself as well? >> i-notify rocks but is linux only afaik. > > Yep. > >> Hmm, how can I do this? I have trouble making it clear without using >> two terminals and a video (that would be very easy) > > Well, don't depend on Terminal quirks too much. Why not just take my > example and annotate it a bit better? Okay will do
