I've definitely waxed & waned a number of times through jq familiarity. And sometimes it is a bit of a stress. But this feels like a vastly unfair basis for co

I've definitely waxed & waned a number of times through jq familiarity. And sometimes it is a bit of a stress. But this feels like a vastly unfair basis for comparison. None of the old tools do 1/1000th what jq does. Arbitrary structure data in, a whole pipe of simple or complex commands, structured data out. Jq is complex maybe sure yeah, but it replaces some really gnarly inefficient awful zsh scripts I'd have to cobble together with something that, in the end, is sensible & clear & direct. That other people would probably also write the same way I did. Living in the structures data world is so much better than arbitrary text-line oriented systems. They may individually be better, but the utter lack of consistency in the old world meant reinventing too much, each time you want to do a task. Jq effectively is a mini shell, full of shell like concepts (operators, variables, pipes,...), and on those grounds, it's not like zsh has any shortage of capabilities most people don't know about & use well. Most of our shell scripting is beating on the same 10% and having to go hunt around through the other 90% on demand too.