As an old Unix guy this is exactly how I see jq: a gateway to a fantastic library of text processing tools. I see a lot of complicated things done inside the language, which is a valid approach. But I don’t need it to be a programming language itself, just a transform to meet my next command after the pipe.
If I want logic beyond that, then I skip the shell and write “real” software.
I personally find those both to be more readable and easier to fit in my head than long complex jq expressions. But that’s completely subjective and others may find the jq expression language easier to read than shell or (choose your programming language).
If I want logic beyond that, then I skip the shell and write “real” software.
I personally find those both to be more readable and easier to fit in my head than long complex jq expressions. But that’s completely subjective and others may find the jq expression language easier to read than shell or (choose your programming language).