31–40 of 80 posts
The other day, I found myself in need of visualising a tree of paths, like this: /one/two /one/three/four /one/three/five /six I ended up converting it to a JSON with a one-off Python script, and then using fx for the viewing. It worked very well! Thank you for the tool! (Incidentally, I’ve been writing my own viewer [0] to satisfy my original need more straightforwardly, but that’s still in very early stages.) [0]:…
This could be done with nushell. https://www.nushell.sh/commands/docs/from_json.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Equivalent jq seems okay here: echo '{"name": "world"}' | jq '"Hello \(.name)"'
Yes and both can be expressed in js and jq. Poinjt is what JS is known by much more peopel. As fx uses Node or Deno we for example can use lodash in fx: fx '_.groupBy("commit.author.name")' '_.mapValues(size)' '_.toPairs' '_.sortBy(1)' '_.reverse' '_.take(10)' '_.fromPairs' To do if in jq, it will take me much more time and extensive documentation reading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP but echo '{"name": "world"}' | fx 'x => x.name' 'x => `Hello, ${x}!`' Is immediately grokkable compared to jq's syntax. I love jq, I think it's extremely powerful, but I have to load up the documentation in a side window every time I have use it.
Equivalent jq seems okay here: echo '{"name": "world"}' | jq '"Hello \(.name)"'
You can argue that's the case for any language, but it's the fundamental reason DSLs rarely capture the mainstream for on-the-fly utilities. Leveraging existing knowledge of a more heavily used syntax really helps here. Look at awk for example - it's been around forever, and despite its power and ubiquity in OS installs, you'll still see sed in many many more bash scripts because it's leaning on widely used familiar syntax rather than a DSL.
That said - the fx example has "x => Hello, ${x}!" where I would expect "x => `Hello, ${x}!`", so that does indicate to me that fx has its own gotchas lurking - this example could just be contrived to look intuitive.
The other day, I found myself in need of visualising a tree of paths, like this: /one/two /one/three/four /one/three/five /six I ended up converting it to a JSON with a one-off Python script, and then using fx for the viewing. It worked very well! Thank you for the tool! (Incidentally, I’ve been writing my own viewer [0] to satisfy my original need more straightforwardly, but that’s still in very early stages.) [0]:…
As in filesystem paths? Are you aware of `tree`? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(command)
Having used https://jqlang.github.io/jq/ , wondering your pitch on advantages, alternative use cases for using fx?
But is jq interactive?
Hey HN friends! I've taken `fx` back to the drawing board and completely rewritten it from the ground up. Excited to share what's new: 1. *Going Big*: `fx` now gracefully handles even the most massive JSON files. 2. *A New TUI Look*: Dive deep into your data with a revamped terminal interface—now with themes! 3. *Swift Navigation with Dig Fuzzy Search*: Feeling lost in JSON? Just type `.` and navigate with ease. 4. *…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you see npm/npx mentioned?
The project supports JS scripts as arguments to process the data: https://fx.wtf/getting-started#json-processing It's hard to tell from the docs if there is any JS involved if you just pipe JSON data to fx. I would hope not, since it mentions being written in Go for performance.
Edit: Answered my own question. I installed it into a podman container with nothing else in it, and it printed this when trying to execute js:
Node.js or Deno is required to run fx with reducers.This could be done with nushell. https://www.nushell.sh/commands/docs/from_json.html
[1] I don't but tempted to try, like its data-types concept