Re: Light weight support for JSON

[Chet Ramey]

On 8/28/22 5:50 PM, Yair Lenga wrote:
> First, thanks for taking the time to read and provide your thoughts. This
> is the real value of the discussion/
>
> Second: I'm NOT trying to argue that there isn't valid use for
> combining bash/curl/jq, Nor do I suggest adding JSON as first class object
> to bash (Python/node/Perl/Groovy are way ahead  ...).
>
> I hope to get feedback from other readers for the news group that may find
> this approach useful.
>
> I'll take the very common use case of using AWS CLI, which does produces
> JSON response for most calls. Processing the response, while possible with
> JQ, it is challenging to many junior (and intermediate) developers. In many
> cases, they fall into the traps that I mentioned above - performance
> (excessive forking or fork/exec), or code that is hard to read (I've seen
> really bad code - combining pipes of JQ/awk/sed). I'm trying to address
> those cases. Almost always they fail to properly handle objects with while
> space, new-lines, etc.
>
> To be practical, I'll try to follow the loadable extension path, and see
> how much I can get thru that path. 

This is the path I generally recommend. You will have to address the data
representation issues through some kind of convention(s), and encapsulating
those in a loadable builtin will minimize changes elsewhere.

Possibly will make sense to continue
> discussion with a concrete implementation. I believe the necessary commands
> are:

These can all be options to a single `json' loadable builtin.

Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/