Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zq: An easier and faster alternative to jq

brimdata.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 237 posts

Re: Zq: An easier and faster alternative to jq

#131

Post by mschuster91 »

jodrellblank wrote: post #118
mschuster91 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do your due diligence on whatever you install. No tool should be exempt from that. That's a ridiculous take. 99% of users don't understand what all that technobabble in a typical EULA means, they will just go for the option they are nudged to (which is why first the courts and now enforcement agencies are stepping up their game against that practice [1]). The way that the GDPR expects stuff to be handled is by gett…

The GDPR applies to personal data. PowerShell telemetry isn't personal data, so it's not covered by the GDPR. What is reported is documented here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsoft... and is " anonymized information about the host running PowerShell, and information about how PowerShell is used ". It sucks that it has telemetry, but anonymised information about whether a computer ran 10 .ex…

Even the fact that a particular piece of software is used by a specific IP address is enough PII that it's covered under GDPR by most viewpoints. The fact that Microsoft is collecting even more data doesn't excuse telemetry in PowerShell at all.

I would simply wish for no telemetry to happen at all without user consent. If Microsoft wants information about how people use their software or how stable it is and not enough people opt in, they should fucking pay people money for market research and QA.

Re: Zq: An easier and faster alternative to jq

#132

Post by silon42 »

hiram112 wrote: post #75
Beltalowda wrote: post #57

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…

Bingo. There are at least a dozen tools and languages and syntaxes that I've used sporadically over the years - awk, sed, bash, Mongo, perl, etc. I don't use them often enough to remember exactly how they work, and so I always have to spend a few hours reviewing manuals or old code repos or an O'Reilly book. But if I do end up using it for a few days in a row, it starts to make sense, and I improve each time I use it…

Same for me... everytime I have to lookup the basics... and I love awk,perl and xpath/xslt.

Re: Zq: An easier and faster alternative to jq

#134

Post by RulerOf »

msluyter wrote: post #11

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

Gron and jq are complementary tools IMO. I frequently use gron to trim down large json files such that I can determine what my ultimate jq query is going to look like.

Re: Zq: An easier and faster alternative to jq

#135

Post by politelemon »

> HomeBrew for Mac or Linux

Please do not recommend HomeBrew for Linux. A binary download is safer compared to how HomeBrew clobbers a Linux machine. If you do not wish to use a Linux package manager, simply point at the binary download. It is much safer and less intrusive.

Re: Zq: An easier and faster alternative to jq

#136

Post by rienko »

mccanne wrote: post #98

Hi, all. Author here. Thanks for all the great feedback. I've learned a lot from your comments and pointers. The Zed project is broader than "a jq alternative" and my bad for trying out this initial positioning. I do know there are a lot of people out there who find jq really confusing, but it's clear if you become an expert, my arguments don't hold water. We've had great feedback from many of our users who are reall…

Ever since my team started using Splunk (circa 2012), we claimed for a more open version we could tinker with and not cost an arm and a leg to ingest multiple terabytes of daily data.

Positioning as an opensource Splunk would be an interesting play. Going through your docs the union() function looks like it returns a set, akin to splunk values(), is there the equivalent to list()?

Elastic is great in its lane, but it requires more resources and has a monolith weight, that has left a sour taste from our internal testing. Doing a minimal ElasticSearch compatible API would open up your target audience, are there any plans to do you it in a short term horizon (< 1 year)?

Re: Zq: An easier and faster alternative to jq

#137

Post by dotancohen »

Beltalowda wrote: post #110
ts0000 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know; I wouldn't presume to tell you what you do or don't find arcane, but once I understood the somewhat unusual flow of awk ("for every line, check if the line matches this condition, and if it does run this block of code") I found it's quite easy to work with. It's "arcane" in the sense that it has an implicit loop and that it's a specialized language for a very limited class of problems, but I found that…

  > an implicit loop
As an occasional awk user, I'd love if you expand on this. Maybe it will help clear things up for me. You're not referring to the fact that awk operates on every line independently, are you?

Re: Zq: An easier and faster alternative to jq

#138

Post by omaranto »

kryptozinc wrote: post #123

Is there a universal json normalizer (to csv for example) that doesn't require learning a terse language?

There is gron [1], which prints json as a series of assignment statements that recreate the json value. It's pretty handy.

[1] https://github.com/TomNomNom/gron

Re: Zq: An easier and faster alternative to jq

#139

Post by [deleted] »

mccanne wrote: post #98

Hi, all. Author here. Thanks for all the great feedback. I've learned a lot from your comments and pointers. The Zed project is broader than "a jq alternative" and my bad for trying out this initial positioning. I do know there are a lot of people out there who find jq really confusing, but it's clear if you become an expert, my arguments don't hold water. We've had great feedback from many of our users who are reall…

[deleted]

Re: Zq: An easier and faster alternative to jq

#140

Post by [deleted] »

knome wrote: post #20

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN