[bsdetector]

> The nature of being nested, and also containing structures like lists, maps, etc. All of which makes it more complicated than key=value.

These are javascript objects, which are key-value. A list array is just keyed by a number instead of a string. They're functionally exactly the same as name=value except JSON is parsed depth-first whereas shell variables are breadth-first parsing (which is way better from shells).

Do you have an example of a CLI tool - intended for human use - that has output so complicated it can't be easily mapped to name=value? I don't think there is one, and it's certainly not common.

> You're reading into hostility where there isn't any.

I think "it seems you're determined not to use jq" is pretty hostile since I made no intimation of that at all.

[starttoaster]

> I think "it seems you're determined not to use jq" is pretty hostile since I made no intimation of that at all.

Well, I didn't say that, so I don't know what that other person's feelings or intentions are, to be fair. I personally have no feeling of hostility towards you just because we (apparently) disagree on the usefulness of JSON to represent complex data types, or at least disagree on how often human-usable CLI tools output complex data. But to answer:

> Do you have an example of a CLI tool - intended for human use - that has output so complicated it can't be easily mapped to name=value? I don't think there is one, and it's certainly not common.

kubectl. Which to be fair defaults to output to a table-like format. Though it gets all that data in the table from JSON for you. smartctl is another one, which also defaults to table format. To be honest, I could go on and on if the only qualifier is a CLI tool that emits complex data, not suited for just key=value.

> These are javascript objects, which are key-value. A list array is just keyed by a number instead of a string. They're functionally exactly the same as name=value except JSON is parsed depth-first whereas shell variables are breadth-first parsing (which is way better from shells).

As mentioned before, just because you can compare JSON to key=value, does not mean it's as simple as key=value. It's a data serialization language that builds well on top of simple key=value formats. You're welcome to enjoy other data serialization languages, like yaml, HCL, or PKL. But none of those are simple key=value formats either. They built the ability to represent more complex structures on top of that.

A data serialization language allows the end-user to specify how they would like to use that data, while allowing them to use standard parsing tools like jq. Cramming complex data into a value string in a key=value format gives end users the same allowance to use that data however they want, while also giving them a chore to handle parsing it in custom ways tailored to just your CLI application, likely in ways that would seem far more brittle than parsing a defined language with well defined constraints. That doesn't sound like great UX to me. But to be fair to you, you're not saying that you wish to use key=value to represent complex data. Rather, you're saying there's a general lack of complex data to be found, to which I also disagree with.

[bsdetector]

> But none of those are simple key=value formats either.

What is the difference between:

    { object: { name: value }}
    { object: "{ name: value }"}
    object="name=value"

There's zero difference between any of them except how you parse and process the data.

> kubectl. Which to be fair defaults to output to a table-like format.

With line-based shell-variable output you have a line of variables and you have blocks of lines separated by an empty line (like an HTTP 1 header).

This can easily map to any table, two dimensions, or two levels of data structure without even quoting subvariables like in the example above. So, no, kubectl is not an example at least not how you've described it.