What garbage collected language would be recommended to use when creating a FUSE implementation

Question

I would like to implement a virtual filesystem using FUSE under Linux and Mac OS X. I have mainly worked in Java and .NET/C#, but also familiar with Python and do write small utilities/shell scripts in Python. Writing is C/C++ is something that I would try to avoid if possible mainly because of lack of experience in the team.

I see from the FUSE bindings site that there are many binding towards different languages, but I'm not sure which one is the most mature. I have a development team around me which also have worked most in Java and C#. On top of that, the environment must have implementations of common cryptographic algorithm such as Rijndael/AES and RSA.

I've considered Mono since we have a lot of client code in C# already, but the binding haven't been updated for a while and I'm a bit concerned about deploying Mono on Mac OS X. Python is an option, but the team isn't too used to Python syntax although I know it. Java is an option, but I concerned about the bindings which seems to be forked without to much progress.

A last option which I have considered is Vala which has FUSE binding, but the documentation and examples are missing. I know that Vala isn't a garbage collected language, but I still consider it an option. Not sure how easy it is to deploy GObject on Mac OS X.

Answer 1

Consider creating your own binding using a tool like SWIG versus using a pre-compiled (and possibly old) binding. This approach gives you a few advantages:

1. You can use any language you mentioned (With the possible exception of Vala. I'm not familiar with Vala).
2. You know your binding is up-to-date and works with your version of the FUSE API.
3. Most importantly, you gain experience with a wrapper generator which is extremely valuable if you require bindings to any other C/C++ API in the future.

Creating your own binding will certainly take longer, but may be worth it in the long run. As a shortcut, the FUSE bindings page includes SWIG bindings. They might provide a good starting point for compiling your own binding using SWIG.

Answer 2

I am also developing fuse fs. I am using python. As for me it is better for this purpose than some static typed language (c# or java) because there is problems with debugging fuse filesystems. You don't have access to stdin/stdout/stderr therefore after mounting you can't see even exceptions. Python is dynamic and it is easier manipulate with tracebacks, exceptions, execution frames, etc in it.