Regular pipe vs. Named Pipe

[Dan Bernstein]

In article <2736 at root44.co.uk> gwc at root.co.uk (Geoff Clare) writes:
> brnstnd at kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >Basically, pipes work the same way everywhere, and named pipes don't.
> >The name part of named pipes is their least portable aspect. Never use
> >them in a long-lived program if you can use any other communications
> >mechanism.
> Apart from the fact that Dan obviously didn't mean what he wrote here
> ("any other communications mechanism" would include a mechanism specific
> to one system, and therefore totally non-portable),

I meant what I wrote. A program which supports message queues and
UNIX-domain sockets will work correctly on far more machines than a
program which supports named pipes. In fact, a program which does
anything with named pipes that couldn't be done with pipes is almost
certainly going to fail on one of (A) SunOS; (B) Ultrix; (C) SVR4.

---Dan