While I appreciate the sentiment for bending your mind, rather than the spoon, the practical reality is that developer time is far costlier than compute time.
It is easier to map compute structures and syntax to existing mental models than to formulate new mental models. The latter is effortful and time-consuming.
So, given the tradeoffs, I could learn a new language, or leverage an existing language to get things done.
And yes, given sufficient resources (particularly time), developing new mental models is ideal, but reality often prohibits the ideal.
If the crux is that you want something that maps closer to your personal mental model than what's available, I guess the other option is to build the missing tool yourself. That's the other side of "be the change you want to see".
> So, given the tradeoffs, I could learn a new language, or leverage an existing language to get things done.
There is also the option to create a new language (jqsql or whatnot), optionally sharing it publically.
If you do this I think you'd find out why beyond very trivial stuff, sibling commenters have a point in that SQL isn't a good fit for nested data like JSON. Would still be a useful exercise!
It is easier to map compute structures and syntax to existing mental models than to formulate new mental models. The latter is effortful and time-consuming.
So, given the tradeoffs, I could learn a new language, or leverage an existing language to get things done.
And yes, given sufficient resources (particularly time), developing new mental models is ideal, but reality often prohibits the ideal.