> The OP claims that they've solved this dilemma in Julia. I await with bated breath. The obvious solution would seem to be to provide an easy way to directly

> The OP claims that they've solved this dilemma in Julia. I await with bated breath. The obvious solution would seem to be to provide an easy way to directly create a pipeline from within Julia. I.e. you use syntax similar to shell syntax, but rather than spawning a shell Julia spawns the desired processes directly. That way it can directly pass arguments to execv (avoiding escaping issues altogether), wait on all of the child processes individually (allowing clean and detailed error detection), and avoid the overhead of actually starting a shell.