On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:39:17 +0100
Didier Kryn <kryn@???> wrote:
> Le 15/03/2018 à 07:22, Steve Litt a écrit :
> >> There are alternatives to communicating through dbus. If two
> >> processes are necessary, a socket or a pipe can do it. If more
> >> structured communication is necessary and you don't need two
> >> processes (why would you in this case), other famous applications
> >> use a kind of dynamically linked libraries (plugins).
> >>
> > LOL, I've used the kill command from one shellscript to another to
> > tell the shellscript when to look for the next "thing". And
> > sometimes a simple FIFO is enough, as described in pages 18-20 of
> > http://troubleshooters.com/linux/presentations/leap_digitizing/leap_digitizing.pdf
> >
> > That setup between asyncronous producer and modifier programs is as
> > old as computers themselves.
>
> I think the issue is with the psychology of the programmer. It's
> possible to have fun playing with these communication tools, at least
> for young programmer discovering them. If you're in love with C++,
> you'll possibly enjoy D-bus, because it's designed with C++ in mind.
> And you'll interface your pocket calculator emulator with D-bus, just
> for the fun of it.
> Not forgetting, of course, the company willing to
> make money out of complexity.
Whoa, you said that, not I. When I've implied that in the past, they
offered me a tinfoil hat and trotted out Hanlon's Razor
[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor] as their justification.
When I transitioned from a hobbyist programmer to a professional one, I
learned pretty fast you need to please the custy, and unless you're
sure you won't be the one fixing it six months from now, you need to
make it simple and robust for future changes/fixes. And as a hired-gun
programmer-analyst who wore his salesman hat one day, his systems
analyst hat the next three, and his programmer hat the next three after
that, and his debt collector hat after that, I learned that us one man
bands don't have time for scope creep.
SteveT