hakorune/docs/guides/comparison/nyash-vs-others.md

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.