Re: open(2) vs fopen(3)

> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, moreau francis wrote:
>> 
>> I'm reading git source code and falling on this stupid question:
>> Why sometime open(2) is used and other time fopen(3) is
>> prefered. I'm sorry for this dump question but I have no clue.
>
> fopen() tends to result in easier usage, especially if the file in 
> question is a line-based ASCII file, and you can just use "fgets()" to 
> read it. So fopen is the simple alternative for simple problems.
>
> Using a direct open() means that you have to use the low-level IO 
> functions (I'm ignoring the use of "fdopen()"), but if done right, it has 
> a number of advantages:
>...
>  - error conditions are a lot more obvious and repeatable with the 
>    low-level things, at least so I find personally. Error handling with 
>    stdio routines is _possible_, but probably because almost nobody ever 
>    does it, it's not something that people are conditioned to do, so it 
>    ends up beign "strange".