Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #8003

Re: fopen

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/ 9/11 03:29 AM, China Blue Dolls wrote:
> In article<slrnj1e553.21o0.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>,
>   Seebs<usenet-nospam@seebs.net>  wrote:
>
>> In general, C implementations will do a reasonable job of implementing
>> fopen()
>> sensibly.
>
> That would explain why so many people have replaced it.
>
>> The major advantage of tty buffering is efficiency over connections where
>> latency is relatively high.  Such as, say, any remote connection whatsoever.
>> If you've got access to machines which support both character and line
>> buffering, and aren't physically adjacent, try it out sometime; line
>
> And how often do people use a remote connection any more? An xterm is not a
> remote connection. Most people now use desktop, laptops, and workstations. They
> are rarely using telnet, ftp, etc directly.

Most of the time, most days.

>> fopen makes sense for plain files.  Arguing that it's possible that the
>> buffer
>> will get paged is... well, frankly, totally irrelevant.  The parts of the
>> system that do buffering are usually aware of those tradeoffs.
>
> I hate to break to you, but stdio is increasingly the interface of last resort.

Says who?

stdio is the best choice until proven otherwise.  Even in the small 
embedded world, stdio is the common channel for communicating with the 
outside world.

-- 
Ian Collins

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

fopen jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-08 12:59 +0200
  Re: fopen Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 23:06 +1200
    Re: fopen China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-08 04:40 -0700
      Re: fopen Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 23:46 +1200
        Re: fopen China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-08 05:15 -0700
          Re: fopen Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-08 14:47 +0000
            Re: fopen China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-08 08:18 -0700
            Re: fopen Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-08 19:37 +0000
              Re: fopen China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-08 13:02 -0700
      Re: fopen Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-08 14:47 +0000
        Re: fopen China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-08 08:29 -0700
          Re: fopen Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-08 15:55 +0000
            Re: fopen China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-08 09:19 -0700
              Re: fopen Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-08 17:21 +0000
              Re: fopen Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-08 13:39 -0700
                Re: fopen China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-08 17:17 -0700
                Re: fopen Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-08 17:39 -0700
                Re: fopen Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-09 06:04 +0000
                Re: fopen China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-09 01:39 -0700
          Re: fopen Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-09 08:23 +1200
          Re: fopen Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-09 07:47 +0100
          Re: fopen Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-09 06:55 -0700
            Re: fopen Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-07-10 05:26 +0100
              Re: fopen Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-10 02:33 -0700
    Re: fopen James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-08 08:18 -0400
      Re: fopen Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-09 08:18 +1200
      Re: fopen Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-09 07:52 +0100
  Re: fopen Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:10 +0000
    Re: fopen BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 12:25 -0700

csiph-web