191–196 of 196 posts
For everyone pining for a Jq with a different syntax: I have a bunch of links to alternatives collected, you might want to try some of them (some may be for different things than JSON): https://github.com/fiatjaf/awesome-jq https://github.com/TomConlin/json2xpath https://github.com/antonmedv/fx https://github.com/fiatjaf/jiq https://github.com/simeji/jid https://github.com/jmespath/jp https://github.com/cube2222/jql…
Don't forget powershell's Convert-FromJson :) https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsoft...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think at least two people in the thread pointed out that you can use /dev/stdin as a file.
It's more than a little strange that isn't default behavior out of the box without specifying input. How do the authors think jq is used?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair that is a JSON parse error.
Yes, but the inputs to jq are not JSON, they are "a sequence of whitespace-separated JSON values which are passed through the provided filter one at a time" which is the relevant thing if you are going to try to replace jq.
The comma operations means that the "filters" are duplicated, so instead of one json state you would pass two if there's one coma; and ofcourse any number of commas are allowed.
Would be good if someone adds an explanation why this new approach is better, is it that the OCaml is faster, more efficient algorithms were used, etc?
https://github.com/davesnx/query-json#performance https://github.com/davesnx/query-json/blob/master/benchmarks...
But all explanations aren't based by any evidence, just asumptions.