The first is interesting. I have a hard time imagining what that syntax would look like. You'd need a way to refer to your graph nodes, so I don't think you wou

The first is interesting. I have a hard time imagining what that syntax would look like. You'd need a way to refer to your graph nodes, so I don't think you would get much better than what named pipes (aka FIFOs) already provide. Totally agree about GNU parallel. The syntax is not badly-designed IMO, but I don't use it very frequently and it's different from everything else so I often get it wrong. Using it as a drop-in replacement for xargs is easy enough though.