Live data from Hacker News

A Faster Alternative to Jq

micahkepe.com

101–110 of 281 posts

Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the website is vibe-coded, like the tool itself.

this is a bad faith take. i think the website is really cool and doesn't reek of slop at all. what makes you think differently?

Same.

And who cares if it's vibe-coded or not. Since when do we care more on the how than on the what? Are people looking at how a tool was coded before using it, as if it would accelerate confidence?

Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq

#102
Quick question: Isn't the construction of a NFA - DFA a O(2^n) algorithm? If a JSON file has a couple hundred values, its equivalent NFA will have a similar amount, and the DFA will have 2^100 states, so I must be missing something.

Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq

#103
post #76

I appreciate performance as much as the next person; but I see this endless battle to measure things in ns/us/ms as performative. Sure there are 0.000001% edge cases where that MIGHT be the next big bottleneck. I see the same thing repeated in various front end tooling too. They all claim to be _much_ faster than their counterpart. 9/10 whatever tooling you are using now will be perfectly fine. Example; I use grep a…

Whenever you have this kind of impressions on some development, here are my 2 cents: just think "I'm not the target audience". And that's fine. The difference between 2ms and 0.2ms might sound unneeded, or even silly to you. But somebody, somewhere, is doing stream processing of TB-sized JSON objects, and they will care. These news are for them.

Which is fine, but the vast majority of the things that get presented aren’t bothering to benchmark against my use (for a whole lotta mes). They come from someone scratching an itch and solving it for a target audience of one and then extrapolating and bolting on some benchmarks. And at the sizes you’re talking about, how many tooling authors have the computing power on hand to test that?

Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq

#104

I appreciate performance as much as the next person; but I see this endless battle to measure things in ns/us/ms as performative. Sure there are 0.000001% edge cases where that MIGHT be the next big bottleneck. I see the same thing repeated in various front end tooling too. They all claim to be _much_ faster than their counterpart. 9/10 whatever tooling you are using now will be perfectly fine. Example; I use grep a…

True. I feel like the main way a tool could differentiate from jq is having more intuitive syntax and many real world examples to show off the syntax.

The syntax makes perfect sense when you understand the semantics of the language.

Out of curiosity, have you read the jq manpage? The first 500 words explain more or less the entire language and how it works. Not the syntax or the functions, but what the language itself is/does. The rest follows fairly easily from that.

Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq

#105
post #62

I appreciate performance as much as the next person; but I see this endless battle to measure things in ns/us/ms as performative. Sure there are 0.000001% edge cases where that MIGHT be the next big bottleneck. I see the same thing repeated in various front end tooling too. They all claim to be _much_ faster than their counterpart. 9/10 whatever tooling you are using now will be perfectly fine. Example; I use grep a…

> I see the same thing repeated in various front end tooling too. They all claim to be _much_ faster than their counterpart. > > 9/10 whatever tooling you are using now will be perfectly fine Are you working in frontend? On non-trivial webapps? Because this is entirely wrong in my experience. Performance issues are the #1 complaint of everyone on the frontend team. Be that in compiling, testing or (to a lesser extend…

Worked on front end for years. Rarely ever hear people talking about performance issues. I was among the very few people who knew how to use the dev tools to investigate memory leak or heard of memlab.

Either the team I worked at was horrible, or you are from Google/Meta/Walmart where either everyone is smart or frondend performance is directly related to $$.

Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq

#107

I appreciate performance as much as the next person; but I see this endless battle to measure things in ns/us/ms as performative. Sure there are 0.000001% edge cases where that MIGHT be the next big bottleneck. I see the same thing repeated in various front end tooling too. They all claim to be _much_ faster than their counterpart. 9/10 whatever tooling you are using now will be perfectly fine. Example; I use grep a…

Maybe look at it from another perspective. Better performance == less CPU cycles wasted. Consider how many people use jq daily and think about how much energy could be saved by faster implementations. In times like this where energy is becoming more scarce we should think about things like this.

> Consider how many people use jq daily and think about how much energy could be saved by faster implementations.

Say a number; make a real argument. Don't just wave your hand and say "just imagine how right I could be about this vague notion if we only knew the facts"

Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the website is vibe-coded, like the tool itself.

this is a bad faith take. i think the website is really cool and doesn't reek of slop at all. what makes you think differently?

I would not be surprised at all if it's vibe coded. I have seen exactly the same thing myself.

I gave instruction to Claude to add a toggle button to a website where the value needs to be stored in local storage.

It is a very straightforward change. Just follow exactly how it is done for a different boolean setting and you are set. An intern can do that on the first day of their job.

Everything is done properly except that on page load, the stored setting is not read.

Which can be easily discovered if the author, with or without AI tools, has a test or manually goes through the entire workflow just once. I discovered the problem myself and fixed it.

Setting all of that aside -- even if this is not AI coded, at the least it shows the site owner doesn't have the basic care for its visitors to go through this important workflow to check if everything works properly.

Re: A Faster Alternative to Jq

#110

I appreciate performance as much as the next person; but I see this endless battle to measure things in ns/us/ms as performative. Sure there are 0.000001% edge cases where that MIGHT be the next big bottleneck. I see the same thing repeated in various front end tooling too. They all claim to be _much_ faster than their counterpart. 9/10 whatever tooling you are using now will be perfectly fine. Example; I use grep a…

I get the sentiment, but everybody thinks that, and in aggregate, you get death by a thousand paper cuts.

It’s the same sentiment as “Individuals don’t matter, look at how tiny my contribution is.”. Society is made up of individuals, so everybody has to do their part.

> 9/10 whatever tooling you are using now will be perfectly fine.

It is not though. Software is getting slower faster than hardware is getting quicker. We have computers that are easily 3–4+ orders of magnitudes faster than what we had 40 years ago, yet everything has somehow gotten slower.

Post reply on HN