Pros of Nushell

• More mature project with a larger community and ecosystem
• Designed as a full-featured shell replacement with built-in data manipulation capabilities
• Supports cross-platform usage on Windows, macOS, and Linux

Cons of Nushell

• Steeper learning curve due to its unique approach to shell interactions
• May be overkill for users who only need simple configuration management

Code Comparison

Nushell example:

ls | where size > 1kb | sort-by modified

Nickel example:

let config = {
  port = 8080,
  debug = std.env.DEBUG | default false
}

Key Differences

• Nushell is a complete shell environment, while Nickel is a configuration language
• Nushell focuses on data processing and pipeline operations, Nickel on type-safe configuration
• Nushell has a more extensive feature set, Nickel aims for simplicity in configuration management

Use Cases

• Nushell: Ideal for users looking to replace their traditional shell with a more powerful, data-oriented alternative
• Nickel: Best suited for projects requiring a robust, type-safe configuration language with functional programming features

Community and Development

• Nushell has a larger user base and more frequent updates
• Nickel is newer and still evolving, with a focus on configuration use cases

Pros of dhall-lang

• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Stronger focus on type safety and correctness
• Better documentation and learning resources

Cons of dhall-lang

• Less flexible and expressive compared to Nickel's contract system
• Steeper learning curve for users new to functional programming concepts
• Limited integration with existing ecosystems and tools

Code Comparison

Dhall example:

let Config = { port : Natural, debug : Bool }

let default = { port = 8080, debug = False }

in  default // { debug = True }

Nickel example:

let Config = {
  port : Num,
  debug : Bool,
} in

{
  port = 8080,
  debug = false,
} | { debug = true }

Both languages aim to provide configuration management solutions, but Nickel offers a more flexible approach with its contract system and better integration with existing ecosystems. Dhall, on the other hand, provides stronger guarantees for type safety and correctness, making it suitable for projects where these aspects are critical. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the project and the team's familiarity with functional programming concepts.

Pros of Nickel

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Broader feature set, including advanced type checking and contract programming
• Extensive documentation and examples for easier onboarding

Cons of Nickel

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex language features
• Potentially slower execution time compared to the simpler Nickel.rs implementation
• Less focus on web-specific functionality

Code Comparison

Nickel:

let config = {
  port = 8080,
  debug = true,
  database = {
    url = "postgres://localhost/mydb"
  }
}

Nickel.rs:

let mut server = Nickel::new();
server.get("/", middleware! { |_, response|
    "Hello world!"
});
server.listen("127.0.0.1:6767").unwrap();

The Nickel code showcases its configuration-oriented syntax, while Nickel.rs demonstrates its web framework capabilities. Nickel focuses on declarative configuration, whereas Nickel.rs is more about building web applications in Rust.

Pros of Typst

• More focused on document typesetting and layout, making it potentially more user-friendly for specific document creation tasks
• Actively developed with frequent updates and a growing community
• Includes a web-based playground for easy experimentation and sharing

Cons of Typst

• Less flexible as a general-purpose configuration language compared to Nickel
• Limited to document creation and typesetting, whereas Nickel can be used for various configuration tasks
• Steeper learning curve for users not familiar with typesetting systems

Code Comparison

Typst example:

#set page(width: 10cm, height: 5cm)
#circle(radius: 2cm, fill: blue)

Nickel example:

let config = {
  page = { width = "10cm", height = "5cm" },
  shape = { type = "circle", radius = "2cm", fill = "blue" }
}

While both examples define similar structures, Typst's syntax is more specialized for document layout, whereas Nickel's syntax is more general-purpose and resembles a configuration format.

Pros of PureScript

• More mature and established ecosystem with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and learning resources available
• Strong type system with advanced features like higher-kinded types

Cons of PureScript

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to functional programming
• Slower compilation times compared to Nickel
• Less focus on configuration and data modeling use cases

Code Comparison

PureScript:

module Main where

import Prelude
import Effect (Effect)
import Effect.Console (log)

main :: Effect Unit
main = log "Hello, World!"

Nickel:

let main = fun () {
  std.string.concat ["Hello, ", "World!"] | std.debug.dump
};

main ()

Summary

PureScript is a more established functional programming language with a strong type system and extensive ecosystem. It's well-suited for building complex applications but may have a steeper learning curve. Nickel, on the other hand, is a newer language focused on configuration and data modeling, offering a simpler syntax and faster compilation times. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements and the developer's familiarity with functional programming concepts.