3 ms·
jq is yet another bloated syntax to learn and I'd definitely refrain from suggesting it to anyone whos not working with json everyday.
by kabacha 6y ago
jq is yet another bloated syntax to learn and I'd definitely refrain from suggesting it to anyone whos not working with json everyday.
- gen220 6y agoI tend to agree, regretfully. I’ve unfortunately often seen coworkers spend half an hour painstakingly crafting and debugging a jq query, that could have been cobbled together in a few minutes with grep and sed. I think the issue is that jq’s interface makes it really hard to “narrow in” on the right solution, whereas grep is much more forgiving.
- michaelcampbell 6y agoI agree in the general case, but the syntax for pretty printing which is what he is doing is literally nothing. Or 'jq', if you include the binary name. Hardly "bloated".
- xgt001 6y agoAgreed about the bloated syntax bit. Whenever I need to work with jq , I tend to trial with jid first and then use the actual syntax with jq. Convoluted if you think about it....
- sigmonsays 6y agoi dont know if i'd call its syntax bloated at all. jq is something i've hated learning but powerful beyond tying grep and awk together. jq is a tool, and like every tool, requires some upfront learning. Once mastered its much more productive than the grep/awk/friends solution. Take this example JSON <pre> { "code": 42, "items": [ { "type":"color", "name":"red", "rgb": [120, 2, 2 ]}, { "type":"color", "name":"green", "rgb": [2, 120, 2]} ] } </pre> for instance, to grab the rgb field for the color green... jq -r '.items | .[] | select(.name=="green") | .rgb
- benibela 6y agoAn alternative would be to use XPath 3.1. I am implementing XPath in a tool called Xidel. There the syntax for the example is much simpler: xidel - -e '?items ?* [?name="green"] ?rgb' Depends what kabacha means with bloated. The XPath syntax is more verbose, but less cryptic