151–160 of 237 posts
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here because.... I didn't know of ctrl-R. What a life changer (although I had an alias for "hg" to "history | grep" :) )
Please check FZF [1] and it’s integration with ctrl-r. It’s a huge productivity boost and I cannot live without it. [1] https://github.com/junegunn/fzf
There is also "JP" https://github.com/jmespath/jp which follows the jmespath standard
My heartburn with jmespath is that it lacks pipelines, only projections, so doing _crazy_ stuff to the input structure is damn near impossible
I'm personally trying to move away from jq and towards jp, because
- there's a standard defining it, not just an implementation, decreasing the odds of being stuck with an unmaintained tool
- there are libraries supporting the syntax for most of the major programming languages
- JMESPath's relative simplicity compared to jq is a good thing, IMO - Turing-completeness is a two-edged sword
- JMESPath is the AWS CLI query language, which is a convenient bonus
jq is incredibly powerful and I'm using it more and more. Even better, there is a whole ecosystem of tools that are similar or work in conjunction with jq: * jq (a great JSON-wrangling tool) * jc (convert various tools’ output into JSON) * jo (create JSON objects) * yq (like jq, but for YAML) * fq (like jq, but for binary) * htmlq (like jq, but for HTML) List shamelessly stolen from Julia Evans[1]. For live links see…
Is your example not easier to write and read as a 10-something line Python script? I never understood the appeal of jq etc because of this very reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not though, because in this case the (ex-)maintainer works at a Wall St firm.
This is exactly my point. Will he quit the paying job to work for free? How long could he maintain this for free with no other job, or with a job and additional free hours without running out of money or burning out?
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…
People with the time and inclination to slow down and think a little more about how the tools work will produce cleaner solutions.
In your example to convert
{"name":"foo","vals":[1,2,3]}
{"name":"foo","val":1}
{"name":"foo","val":2}
{"name":"foo","val":3}
{name:.name, val:.vals[]}
.vals = .vals[]
These filters takes advantage of how jq's [] operator converts a single result into separate results. For people new to jq this behavior is often confusing unless they've seen things like Cartesian products.
.[] - https://stedolan.github.io/jq/manual/#Array/ObjectValueItera...
The purpose of life is not to know JQ. I just want to process the JSON so I can move on and do whatever is actually important. Ideally, I'd just be able to tell GPT-codex to do what I want to do to the JSON in English.
We're not there yet, but in the meantime if there's another tool that allows me to know less in exchange for doing more, I'll gladly use it.
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…
ZSON looks way better than JSON. I pray that the Zed project becomes more popular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PowerShell "sends basic telemetry data to Microsoft [...] about the host running PowerShell, and information about how PowerShell is used" [1]. And since it relies on .NET, that also requires its own separate opt-out for its telemetry. There might be other components, now or in the future, that also send data to Microsoft by default and would have to be separately discovered and disabled. [1] https://docs.microsoft.c…
> And since it relies on .NET, that also requires its own separate opt-out for its telemetry. Building a program with .NET does NOT cause that program to send telemetry to Microsoft. You're thinking of the .NET SDK itself. Using PowerShell does not trigger any use of the .NET SDK. Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft.
However, presumably PowerShell requires at least the .NET Runtime if not the .NET SDK, doesn't it? The docs [2] suggest running "dotnet --list-runtimes" to "see which versions of the .NET runtime are currently installed", so it sounds like the Runtime also includes the dotnet command. Does running the recommended "dotnet --list-runtimes" command send telemetry, like most of the commands? Or are you saying that the Runtime, unlike the SDK, doesn't include telemetry at all?
[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/tools/telemetry
[2] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/install/how-to-...