27 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
27 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
# Nyash vs Other Languages — Feature Comparison
|
||
|
||
Perspective
|
||
- Nyash emphasizes a unified Box model, hygienic AST macros with sandboxing, and multi‑backend execution (PyVM/LLVM/Cranelift/WASM).
|
||
|
||
Axes
|
||
- Control Flow & SSA
|
||
- Nyash: explicit observability (hints), PHI hygiene invariants.
|
||
- Rust/Swift/Kotlin: SSA is internal; limited direct observability.
|
||
- Exceptions
|
||
- Nyash: postfix `catch/cleanup` (scope‑first), zero‑cost lowering.
|
||
- Rust: Result/? idiom (no exceptions). Swift/Kotlin: try/catch/finally.
|
||
- Macros
|
||
- Nyash: AST JSON v0, hygienic by construction, isolated child with capabilities.
|
||
- C: text macro. Rust: macro_rules!/proc‑macros. Lisp/Julia: homoiconic AST.
|
||
- Scope
|
||
- Nyash: ScopeBox (compile‑time metadata) and ScopeEnter/Leave hints; disappears at runtime.
|
||
- Go/Rust/Swift: lexical scopes (no explicit observability layer).
|
||
- Backends
|
||
- Nyash: PyVM (reference semantics), LLVM (AOT), Cranelift (JIT), WASM.
|
||
- Others: single backend or VM.
|
||
|
||
Takeaways
|
||
- Nyash’s differentiator is “observability without cost” and macro safety by default.
|
||
- Where trade‑offs exist (e.g., temporary hygiene valves), they’re gated and documented.
|
||
|