graaljs

Pros of graalvm-ce-builds

• Provides a complete GraalVM distribution, including multiple language runtimes
• Offers pre-built binaries for easier installation and deployment
• Includes additional tools like Native Image for ahead-of-time compilation

Cons of graalvm-ce-builds

• Larger download size due to the inclusion of multiple components
• May include unnecessary components for users only interested in JavaScript
• Potentially more complex configuration for specific use cases

Code Comparison

graaljs:

const Context = Polyglot.import('org.graalvm.polyglot.Context');
const context = Context.create('js');
context.eval('js', 'console.log("Hello from GraalJS!");');

graalvm-ce-builds:

import org.graalvm.polyglot.*;

Context context = Context.create();
Value result = context.eval("js", "console.log('Hello from GraalVM!');");

The code examples demonstrate how to create a JavaScript context and execute code. graaljs focuses on JavaScript-specific usage, while graalvm-ce-builds showcases the polyglot capabilities of GraalVM.

Pros of Node.js

• Larger ecosystem with more packages and community support
• Better performance for I/O-intensive operations
• Wider adoption and more mature tooling

Cons of Node.js

• Single-threaded nature can limit CPU-intensive tasks
• Lack of native support for polyglot programming
• Less suitable for enterprise Java environments

Code Comparison

Node.js:

const http = require('http');

const server = http.createServer((req, res) => {
  res.writeHead(200, { 'Content-Type': 'text/plain' });
  res.end('Hello World\n');
});

server.listen(3000);

GraalJS:

var http = Java.type('com.sun.net.httpserver.HttpServer');
var InetSocketAddress = Java.type('java.net.InetSocketAddress');

var server = http.create(new InetSocketAddress(3000), 0);
server.createContext("/", function(exchange) {
  exchange.sendResponseHeaders(200, 0);
  exchange.getResponseBody().write("Hello World\n".getBytes());
  exchange.close();
});
server.start();

The Node.js example demonstrates its simplicity and native JavaScript approach, while the GraalJS example showcases its ability to interact with Java classes directly within JavaScript code.

Pros of Deno

• Built-in TypeScript support without additional configuration
• Secure by default, with explicit permissions for file, network, and environment access
• Includes a standard library and built-in testing framework

Cons of Deno

• Smaller ecosystem compared to Node.js, which GraalJS can leverage
• Limited compatibility with existing Node.js modules
• Steeper learning curve for developers familiar with traditional Node.js environments

Code Comparison

Deno:

import { serve } from "https://deno.land/std@0.140.0/http/server.ts";

serve(() => new Response("Hello, World!"));

GraalJS:

const http = require('http');

http.createServer((req, res) => {
  res.writeHead(200, { 'Content-Type': 'text/plain' });
  res.end('Hello, World!');
}).listen(8080);

Key Differences

• Deno uses ES modules and URL imports, while GraalJS follows Node.js CommonJS-style imports
• Deno's standard library is more comprehensive and modern compared to GraalJS
• GraalJS focuses on Java interoperability, while Deno emphasizes web standards and security

Use Cases

• Deno: Modern web applications, serverless functions, and TypeScript-heavy projects
• GraalJS: Java applications requiring JavaScript integration, polyglot environments

Pros of JerryScript

• Lightweight and optimized for resource-constrained devices
• Highly portable with minimal dependencies
• Supports a wide range of embedded platforms

Cons of JerryScript

• Limited ECMAScript support (ES5.1 with some ES2015 features)
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to GraalJS
• Less integration with existing Java/JVM ecosystems

Code Comparison

JerryScript:

#include "jerryscript.h"

int main (void)
{
  const jerry_char_t script[] = "print('Hello, World!');";
  jerry_run_simple(script, sizeof(script) - 1, JERRY_INIT_EMPTY);
  return 0;
}

GraalJS:

import org.graalvm.polyglot.*;

public class HelloWorld {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Context context = Context.create("js");
        context.eval("js", "console.log('Hello, World!');");
    }
}

JerryScript focuses on C-based embedded systems, while GraalJS integrates with Java and the JVM ecosystem. JerryScript is more suitable for resource-constrained environments, whereas GraalJS offers broader language support and integration capabilities.

Pros of v8

• Widely adopted and battle-tested in major browsers and Node.js
• Highly optimized for performance with advanced JIT compilation
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of v8

• Larger codebase and more complex architecture
• Limited language interoperability compared to GraalJS
• Primarily focused on JavaScript, with less emphasis on polyglot capabilities

Code Comparison

v8:

Local<Context> context = Context::New(isolate);
Context::Scope context_scope(context);
Local<String> source = String::NewFromUtf8(isolate, "'Hello' + ', World!'");
Local<Script> script = Script::Compile(context, source).ToLocalChecked();
Local<Value> result = script->Run(context).ToLocalChecked();

GraalJS:

Context context = Context.create("js");
Value result = context.eval("js", "'Hello' + ', World!'");
System.out.println(result.asString());
context.close();

The v8 example demonstrates C++ API usage, while GraalJS showcases Java integration. GraalJS offers a simpler API for polyglot execution, whereas v8 provides lower-level control and is more tightly integrated with C++.

Pros of ChakraCore

• Mature and battle-tested engine, used in Microsoft Edge and other applications
• Strong performance, especially in JIT compilation scenarios
• Extensive support for modern ECMAScript features

Cons of ChakraCore

• Less active development and community support in recent years
• Limited cross-platform support compared to GraalJS
• Larger memory footprint for small applications

Code Comparison

ChakraCore:

const Context = require('chakra-core').Context;
const ctx = new Context();
const result = ctx.eval('2 + 2');
console.log(result); // Output: 4

GraalJS:

const Context = require('graaljs').Context;
const ctx = Context.create();
const result = ctx.eval('js', '2 + 2');
console.log(result); // Output: 4

Both engines provide similar APIs for creating contexts and evaluating JavaScript code. However, GraalJS requires specifying the language ('js') when evaluating code, while ChakraCore assumes JavaScript by default.

ChakraCore offers a more traditional JavaScript engine experience, while GraalJS provides tighter integration with the Java ecosystem and polyglot capabilities. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, such as performance needs, platform support, and integration with other languages or runtimes.