4 ms·
I agree, and I feel like the reason to this is the mere existence of 'jq'. Without 'jq' working with json in a Unix shell would be a lot more uncomfortable, but
by braggerxyz 2y ago
I agree, and I feel like the reason to this is the mere existence of 'jq'.
Without 'jq' working with json in a Unix shell would be a lot more uncomfortable, but not impossible.
- stemlord 2y agoThough jq syntax leaves a lot to be desired
- jauntywundrkind 2y agoThe syntax felt ok to me; selectors felt natural and pipes felt very conventionally shell-like. Ut man, the vocabulary, the variety of different operators you'll need to use in this circumstance or that–brutal. There's some decent cookbooks/recipes but they're still 1/5th as big as they could be.
- s_dev 2y agoWhat do you think the trade off here with syntax is and what jq was designed for? A bash script might need to execute it and you want something without lots of funny characters or whitespace as it's going straight in to the terminal. That necessary terseness makes it the opposite of readable.
- pyuser583 2y agoAlso Python. Python handles json really well, at least compared to say bash. I want to say server side JavaScript plays a role in this too, but I’m not a JS developer.