Hacker News Reader

Comment by wwader | Hacker News Reader

Hey! as one of the maintainers i can safely say that we take backwards compatibility very seriously

I wonder how often someone will develop a script on Archlinux and later be surprised that it will not work in our Debian CI. One nice property about jq was that 1.6 was everywhere, remains to be seen how annoying this will be. Probably not that much.

Is there a way to get jq version inside the script?

awesome! Any plans for jq to get native support for YAML?

Nothing planned but there has been some talks about it. https://github.com/jqlang/jq/issues/2855 is probably the lastest issue mentioning it

Not yet, but jq is getting into the kind of shape where we could add support for lots of formats. I'd like to have support for various binary JSON types (e.g., CBOR, but maybe too JSONB and others), YAML, and XML.

gojq has support for yaml input (via a very annoying argument name) and also has the golang property of "curl binary; chmod; profit": https://github.com/itchyny/gojq#difference-to-jq

Its error reporting is also clang-vs-gcc level wizardry, and I often use it to get a helpful message instead of "ENOWORKY" from jq (I haven't tried 1.7 yet, so it could be better for all I know)

that's awesome!

I'd personally use that, but in the context of sharing scripts and snippets with colleagues, the strength of the incumbent `jq` is that we can all assume everybody will have it installed on their machine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com