> I've never been able to figure out why/how Jq got so much larger so much faster.

I offer this in the sense of constructive criticism: for me, it's because your examples are scary. Here's the command you give for reading a URL of a photo uploaded to reddit (in file foo.json):

    $ jshon -e data -e children -e 0 -e data -e url < foo.json

Here's the jq equivalent:

    $ jq -r '.data.children[0].data.url' < foo.json

which looks an awful lot like every other tree parser I've used. Now suppose I want to get all the URLs with jq? That's just:

    $ jq -r '.data.children[].data.url' < foo.json

In Jshon, I have to rewrite the query as:

    $ jshon -e data -e children -a -e data -e url -u < foo.json

That is, replacing the "-e 0" (get item at index 0) with "-a" (do the rest for all items). The jq equivalent changes ".children[0]" to ".children[]", which to my poor muddled brain more clearly represents what I'm asking for. For me, jq's query language maps well onto how I think about the problem. Jshon's does not. That's why I use one and not the other.

Again, I offer this sincerely. Even if I don't personally use it, I love when cool ideas cross-pollinate from one project to another and I'm glad there's more than one player in the space. Thanks for your work!

I have only recently realized the effect a well designed project website can have on the users impression of your project.

I'm sure the code/design quality of jshon is great, but the website design/layout doesn't reflect this.

The current look of your website looks like a website from the late 90's, and may as well implicate that the project is no longer maintained.

Hey, thanks for jshon. I've been using it a lot lately!