Opinion. Likely controversial. The fact that we need jq highlights that we are missing this functionality in shells. I argue that these days (nested) structured data is as basic requirement as having scalars, arrays and associative arrays (which bash has). It hurts my eyes seeing five line of assignment to variables where each one runs jq to extract that particular field from a data structure.
Commands with support would detect the shell and output an SQL schema along with insert statements containing the result of the command on a special file descriptor. These would be applied to a newly created 'history#' table and aliased to the 'result' table. The standard output of the command would still be displayed as it is now.
You could then do things like 'ls' and then 'select name,size,owner from result where size > 1024 and owner != 0;' And continue to run queries against the last result until it's replaced by a new command. Or run queries against the 'history#' table or multiple tables to join results from multiple independent commands.
With support for JSONB in most SQL engines this would provide a nice mechanism for working with any sort of nested data structure from any given program or from plain JSON files if required.
No contraversial at all. And without sounding like I'm flogging a dead horse, since I've mentioned it elsewhere, but you're after Nushell. Everything is data, structured data. And of interest to a sibling comment it's syntax is similar to SQL, with things like where and select.
Edit: in relation to the other sibling comment, Nushell was developed as an improvement over powershell. I use both and prefer nushell's syntax.
I did hear an opinion (somewhere else) that a shell shouldn't have associative arrays either and it was a mistake...
> Nushell
Nushell is a candidate and some people use it and like it. I personally disagree with the design. Then again, I'm not objective. I created Next Generation Shell. It's a fully fledged programming language with domain specific facilities (for running external programs for example). I like this approach more than trying to improve over a shell. It fits my brain better.
I think it's about alignment of the project and how you think.
If it won't be it this time, I'm working on the user interface of Next Generation Shell now and I would like to encourage you to revisit the project once that is done.
Tldr: interactive objects on the screen, each interaction results "interaction record" (structured data about what happened), semantic understanding of what's happening, record/replay facility.
Another big difference is that NGS is a language designed ground up for DevOps-y tasks. The result, in my subjective opinion, is clear and concise scripting. That's due to better fit between the language and problems being solved.
Edit: Python for example "doesn't like" functional programming, while NGS supports it and using map() and filter() is idiomatic.
Edit 2: explanation why UI takes so long. That's because it is being implemented mostly in NGS itself so the language must be in shape (and now it is but it took time).
I don't think the structure is the problem. I think it's fine that the higher you go the bigger decisions and responsibility there is.
The part that I think is not working is that managers neglect one of the basic behaviors they should be engaging in. Weekly one-on-ones done properly. That's the place for information to go from directs to managers.
I would like to make my DevOps colleagues more productive and less frustrated. I'm actually already doing it, it's just way slower when you can't do it as a full time job.
I started working on Next Generation Shell in 2013. I have the programming language in quite a good shape and we use it at work.
I'm working on the UI now. The main idea of the UI is to get rid of telegraph-style communication paradigm of sending text and receiving text. We can actually use the whole screen now. We have text editing using full screen since 1976 (vi) but classical shells are ignoring this capability till this day. It's time to stop treating outputs of programs as if they are still printed on paper, allowing zero interactivity.
Next Generation Shell because I refuse to believe that UI that is limiting the interaction to single line is the pinnacle of UX that we can have today.
Terminals introduced cursor movement feature in the 1970s. Bill Joy responded with releasing vi in 1976. Text editing as we know it today was born. It used ... the whole screen! How the shell responded to this new feature? It largely didn't.
Back to NGS. The programming language is in a good shape. Working on the UI.
More at "jq is a symptom" - https://ilya-sher.org/2018/09/10/jq-is-a-symptom/
Related and might be interesting - "JSON tools for command line" - https://ilya-sher.org/2018/04/10/list-of-json-tools-for-comm...