3 ms·

If you want to see another approach, jshon is much more unixy. (disclaimer, I am the author) homepage: http://kmkeen.com/jshon/ http://kmkeen.com/jshon/ Jsho

by keenerd 11y ago

If you want to see another approach, jshon is much more unixy. (disclaimer, I am the author) homepage: http://kmkeen.com/jshon/ http://kmkeen.com/jshon/ Jshon is also a year older. I've never been able to figure out why/how Jq got so much larger so much faster.

kstrauser 11y ago
> I've never been able to figure out why/how Jq got so much larger so much faster. I offer this in the sense of constructive criticism: for me, it's because your examples are scary. Here's the command you give for reading a URL of a photo uploaded to reddit (in file foo.json): $ jshon -e data -e children -e 0 -e data -e url < foo.json Here's the jq equivalent: $ jq -r '.data.children[0].data.url' < foo.json which looks an awful lot like every other tree parser I've used. Now suppose I want to get all the URLs with jq? That's just: $ jq -r '.data.children[].data.url' < foo.json In Jshon, I have to rewrite the query as: $ jshon -e data -e children -a -e data -e url -u < foo.json That is, replacing the "-e 0" (get item at index 0) with "-a" (do the rest for all items). The jq equivalent changes ".children[0]" to ".children[]", which to my poor muddled brain more clearly represents what I'm asking for. For me, jq's query language maps well onto how I think about the problem. Jshon's does not. That's why I use one and not the other. Again, I offer this sincerely. Even if I don't personally use it, I love when cool ideas cross-pollinate from one project to another and I'm glad there's more than one player in the space. Thanks for your work!
1_player 11y ago
Hey, thanks for jshon. I've been using it a lot lately!
mkonecny 11y ago
I have only recently realized the effect a well designed project website can have on the users impression of your project. I'm sure the code/design quality of jshon is great, but the website design/layout doesn't reflect this. The current look of your website looks like a website from the late 90's, and may as well implicate that the project is no longer maintained.

by keenerd 11y ago

kstrauser 11y ago

> I've never been able to figure out why/how Jq got so much larger so much faster. I offer this in the sense of constructive criticism: for me, it's because your examples are scary. Here's the command you give for reading a URL of a photo uploaded to reddit (in file foo.json): $ jshon -e data -e children -e 0 -e data -e url < foo.json Here's the jq equivalent: $ jq -r '.data.children[0].data.url' < foo.json which looks an awful lot like every other tree parser I've used. Now suppose I want to get all the URLs with jq? That's just: $ jq -r '.data.children[].data.url' < foo.json In Jshon, I have to rewrite the query as: $ jshon -e data -e children -a -e data -e url -u < foo.json That is, replacing the "-e 0" (get item at index 0) with "-a" (do the rest for all items). The jq equivalent changes ".children[0]" to ".children[]", which to my poor muddled brain more clearly represents what I'm asking for. For me, jq's query language maps well onto how I think about the problem. Jshon's does not. That's why I use one and not the other. Again, I offer this sincerely. Even if I don't personally use it, I love when cool ideas cross-pollinate from one project to another and I'm glad there's more than one player in the space. Thanks for your work!

1_player 11y ago

Hey, thanks for jshon. I've been using it a lot lately!

mkonecny 11y ago

I have only recently realized the effect a well designed project website can have on the users impression of your project. I'm sure the code/design quality of jshon is great, but the website design/layout doesn't reflect this. The current look of your website looks like a website from the late 90's, and may as well implicate that the project is no longer maintained.