[Zababa]

> jq does have a learning curve, but just like any query language, including SQL, first you need to learn the basics of the query language in order to get things to work.

SQL is based on solid mathematical theory, relational algebra. I personally learned that (and tuple relational calculus) in college before learning SQL, which made it easier. It helps making it coherant. Is there something like this for jq? Often when people invent languages that are not based on solid theory, they tend to lack coherence. This can make learning them difficult if you're someone that relies on your mental model of how things "should" work, like I am.

[fivea]

> Is there something like this for jq?

It's a filter. You can name-drop math stuff and even mention monads and the like, but it's just predicates, maps, a reductions.

Also, I'm not aware of a single person who ever looked at relational algebra beyond the introductory lessons of a relational databases 101 course, and even then that stuff was mostly in the way.

[Zababa]

Your are the one name-dropping three mathematical concepts though? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. I'm talking about the basis for jq in general, not just your example. And if your message is representative of how the people that created jq think, I guess the answer is no and jq falls into the "no solid theory behind it" category.

I don't think my message was implying that jq is a worse (or better) tool for it. I was just explaining that for some people, tools with a theory behind are easier to learn and understand than tools without.