In article <851r4aij8p.fsf@gmail.com>,
Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>A bit offtopic, apart from jq, are there any other JSON utilities that
>are good and that you personally find useful? Something that's useful
>from the commandline and can be piped to/out?

I think you need to explain why you don't like or can't use jq.

--
In the corner of the room on the ceiling is a large vampire bat who
is obviously deranged and holding his nose.

On Sun, Oct 24 2021,Kenny McCormack wrote:

> In article <851r4aij8p.fsf@gmail.com>,
> Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>A bit offtopic, apart from jq, are there any other JSON utilities that
>>are good and that you personally find useful? Something that's useful
>>from the commandline and can be piped to/out?
>
> I think you need to explain why you don't like or can't use jq.

I didn't say anything of that sort.

I asked if there are others. In this context, I was aware
of jq and was asking for any other that people use.

sivaram
--

In article <85wnm1h6vk.fsf@gmail.com>,
Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 24 2021,Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
>> In article <851r4aij8p.fsf@gmail.com>,
>> Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>A bit offtopic, apart from jq, are there any other JSON utilities that
>>>are good and that you personally find useful? Something that's useful
>>>from the commandline and can be piped to/out?
>>
>> I think you need to explain why you don't like or can't use jq.
>
>I didn't say anything of that sort.
>
>I asked if there are others. In this context, I was aware
>of jq and was asking for any other that people use.

And I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Still, both of the following are
true:

1) This sort of post (almost) always contains an implication of "There's
something wrong with X; what should I use instead?" Because, if
there weren't something wrong with X, the obvious answer would be
"Use X".

I'm not saying that this is 100%, of course, but it is the usual
implication, and people are right to draw it unless/until you
explain otherwise.

2) Knowing why you don't want to use jq, would help us greatly in
figuring out what you are actually looking for and what your actual
requirements are.

Or, this could all just be an academic exercise (maybe for a university
class) where what you want is just a list of jq-like programs. If so, then
Google could probably provide it quite easily.

Mind you, I am a long-time (though not very deep) user of jq, and I've
found that it does the job. I have no other connection with, nor any deep
love of, the program, other than as a reasonably satisfied user.

--
I love the poorly educated.

On Mon, Oct 25 2021,Kenny McCormack wrote:

[snipped 18 lines]

> And I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Still, both of the following are
> true:
>
> 1) This sort of post (almost) always contains an implication of "There's
> something wrong with X; what should I use instead?" Because, if
> there weren't something wrong with X, the obvious answer would be
> "Use X".
>
> I'm not saying that this is 100%, of course, but it is the usual
> implication, and people are right to draw it unless/until you
> explain otherwise.
>
> 2) Knowing why you don't want to use jq, would help us greatly in
> figuring out what you are actually looking for and what your actual
> requirements are.
>
> Or, this could all just be an academic exercise (maybe for a university
> class) where what you want is just a list of jq-like programs. If so, then
> Google could probably provide it quite easily.

Thank you but none of the above hypothesis of yours about *why* I
asked is true. Since you insist on remote mind reading, I'll humour
you with my explanation. I learnt a bit of shell from the 1984 UPE
Kernighan and Pike from a dog eared hand-me-down copy. And I haven't
used any other tools other than what come out of the box in most Oses
with what was described in the book. That usually means, I generally
miss out on some really good tools till quite late, though google does
help these days. In that spirit, given the woolly headed data formats
like json, xml, niche tools seemed to have been developed while I seem
to be writing longer and longer buggy shell scripts to pull out data
from them badly reinventing features of these tools.

I just want to get my work done.

> Mind you, I am a long-time (though not very deep) user of jq, and I've
> found that it does the job.

>I have no other connection with, nor any deep love of, the program,
>other than as a reasonably satisfied user.

As do others including me. I'm not wedded to any of the programs, OS,
PC, laptop, usenet, comp.unix.shell specifically included. Quite why
this statement needs to be put out to get an answer beats me. I
prolly should get my vaccine certificate too just so there's no
infection of comp.unix.shell? :-)

sivaram
--

On 2021-10-25, Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you but none of the above hypothesis of yours about *why* I
> asked is true.

Kennys (2) isn't a hypothesis and quite true; your explanation is helpful.

There is a difference between:

- I'm dissatisfied with jq and looking for alternatives.

versus:

- I'm evaluating as many tools as I can get my hands on for manipulating
JSON in a shell scriting environment. I already know about jq; can you
inform me about any others?"

On Mon, Oct 25 2021,Kaz Kylheku wrote:

> On 2021-10-25, Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thank you but none of the above hypothesis of yours about *why* I
>> asked is true.
>
> Kennys (2) isn't a hypothesis and quite true; your explanation is helpful.

How can it be true when I said no such thing? And even explained,
that I come to know of tools quite late in the game and was curious to
know what *others* used apart from jq!

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Knowing why you don't want to use jq, would help us greatly in
figuring out what you are actually looking for and what your actual
requirements are.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

That's his projection of what I wrote.

>
> There is a difference between:
>
> - I'm dissatisfied with jq and looking for alternatives.
>
> versus:
>
> - I'm evaluating as many tools as I can get my hands on for manipulating
> JSON in a shell scriting environment. I already know about jq; can you
> inform me about any others?"

And you're telling me this for? I'm the OP of the question; instead
of *asking* me, why are people *telling* me what I wrote is not what I
wrote and that another person's response is...I dunno...is technically
correct in a narrow sense?

sivaram
--

Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:
> Thank you but none of the above hypothesis of yours about *why* I
> asked is true. Since you insist on remote mind reading, I'll humour
> you [...]

The "humor" bit is important! There are only two possible answers to your
original question:

1) Yes

2) I don't know.

That's not only boring, it also doesn't help you or anybody else. Therefore a
bit of background is required so we can have an interesting discussion, which
is the only reason anybody is in this group at all.

In article <j0jnusFh28iU4@mid.individual.net>,
Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:
>> Thank you but none of the above hypothesis of yours about *why* I
>> asked is true. Since you insist on remote mind reading, I'll humour
>> you [...]
>
>The "humor" bit is important! There are only two possible answers to your
>original question:
>
>1) Yes
>
>2) I don't know.
>
>That's not only boring, it also doesn't help you or anybody else. Therefore a
>bit of background is required so we can have an interesting discussion, which
>is the only reason anybody is in this group at all.
>

Well said, sir! (On every count)

--
b w r w g y b r y b