Re: Why is it "JSQuery"?

On Jun 6, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Jsquery - is QUERY language, JsonPath - is language to EXTRACT json parts.

Sure, but could we not potentially build on its syntax, instead of building a new one? I’m not saying we *should*, but if we don’t, I think there should be a discussion about why not. For example, I think it would not be a good idea to follow [JSONiq](http://www.jsoniq.org/) because who wants to write queries in JSON? (Have we learned nothing from XSLT?).

Here’s a (partial) list of existing JSON query languages:

http://stackoverflow.com/a/7812073/79202

The arguments might be:

* [JSONiq](http://jsoniq.org/): Queries in JSON? Gross!
* [UNQL](http://www.unqlspec.org/): Too similar to SQL
* [JAQL](https://code.google.com/p/jaql/): Too different from SQL
* [JSONPath](http://goessner.net/articles/JsonPath/): Too verbose
* [JSON Query](https://github.com/mmckegg/json-query): Too little there
* [Mongo](http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Inserting#Inserting-JSON): Gross syntax
* [LINQ](http://james.newtonking.com/archive/2008/03/02/json-net-2-0-beta-2): Too similar to SQL
* [searchjs](https://github.com/deitch/searchjs): Queries in JSON? Gross!
* [JQuery](http://jquery.org/): It's for HTML, not JSON
* [SpahQL](http://danski.github.io/spahql/): More like XPath
* [ObjectPath](http://adriank.github.io/ObjectPath/): Too verbose
* [JFunk](https://code.google.com/p/jfunk/): XPathy
* [JData](http://jaydata.org): Queries in JavaScript? C’mon.

These are just off-the-cuff evaluations in 10 minutes of looking -- surely not all of them are accurate. Some of them maybe *are* useful to emulate. It’s definitely worthwhile, IMHO, to evaluate prior art and decide what, if any of it, should inspire the JSQuery syntax, and there should be reasons why and why not.

I do think that the name should be changed if we don’t follow an existing standard, as [JSQuery](https://code.google.com/p/gwtquery/wiki/JsQuery) is already a thing.

Best,

David