101–110 of 237 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same issue. However, I do successfully rely on using ctrl-r a lot to search prior invoked commands. And have a few core aliases that I've cobbled together....
Here because.... I didn't know of ctrl-R. What a life changer (although I had an alias for "hg" to "history | grep" :) )
Okay, so I'm a big scripter and not much of a programmer and I definitely have found jq to be mostly worthless to me; but it also looks like zq doesn't much help? Seems to me that if you're in a shell, then you should be "shell-like." There should not be much of a learning curve at all, and when in doubt, try to behave like other shell tools, in a Unix way way. Make pipe behavior generally predictable, especially for…
Since no one seems to know about it, jq is described in great detail on the github wiki page [0]. That flattens the learning curve a lot. It's not as arcane as it seems. The touted claim that is fundamentally stateless is not true. jq is also stateful in the sense that it has variables. If you want, you can write regular procedural code this way. Some examples [1] The real problem of jq is that it is currently lackin…
> It's not as arcane as it seems. The issue with jq is that I use it maybe once a month, or even less. The syntax is "arcane enough" that I keep forgetting how to use it because I use it so sporadically. In comparison awk – which I also don't use that often – has a much easier syntax that I can mostly remember. Not entirely convinced by the zq syntax either though; it also seems "arcane enough" that I would keep forg…
[1,2,3] | js "out = 0; for (const n of this) out += n"
Whenever jq comes up I feel obligated to mention 'gron'[1]. If all you're doing is trying to grep some deeply nested field, it's way easier with gron, IMHO. [1] https://github.com/tomnomnom/gron
These guys must really hate functional programming. I can see where jq might confuse someone new to it, but their replacement is irregular, stateful, still difficult, and I don't even see variable binding or anything. jq requires you to understand that `hello|world` will run world for each hello, passing the world out values to either the next piped expression, the wrapping value-collecting list, or printing them to…
No kidding! This part in particular jumped out at me: > To work around this statelessness, you can wrap a sequence of independent values into an array, iterate over the array, then wrap that result back up into another array so you can pass the entire sequence as a single value downstream to the “next filter”. This is literally just describing a map. A technique so generally applicable and useful that it's made its w…
def map(f): [.[] | f];
https://github.com/stedolan/jq/blob/master/src/builtin.jq#L3
Why all the hate HN? I feel the author makes his case clearly, then presents an alternative. Underneath all this is a ton of work, for which I applaud OP. It may not scratch your particular itch, but come on! Being an ass on HN is a choice. It happens far too often, and I wish everyone would just dial it back.
I see criticism for the way they're trying to position it as easier than jq when it's just different than jq.
It looks like a cool project on its own and doesn't need to describe jq as confusing to make that point.
[1] https://github.com/antonmedv/fx
[2] https://twitter.com/antonmedv/status/1515429017582809090
Since no one seems to know about it, jq is described in great detail on the github wiki page [0]. That flattens the learning curve a lot. It's not as arcane as it seems. The touted claim that is fundamentally stateless is not true. jq is also stateful in the sense that it has variables. If you want, you can write regular procedural code this way. Some examples [1] The real problem of jq is that it is currently lackin…
I didn't realize jq was missing a maintainer, it's one of my most used CLI tools.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not as arcane as it seems. The issue with jq is that I use it maybe once a month, or even less. The syntax is "arcane enough" that I keep forgetting how to use it because I use it so sporadically. In comparison awk – which I also don't use that often – has a much easier syntax that I can mostly remember. Not entirely convinced by the zq syntax either though; it also seems "arcane enough" that I would keep forg…
Interesting, for me it's the exact opposite. I've tried a couple of times to get into awk, but still find the syntax arcane.