How to Set Expectations for Non-EVM Tooling

Developing on non-EVM chains like Solana, Cosmos, or Bitcoin's L2s requires a fundamental mindset shift. While the EVM ecosystem standardizes around the Solidity language, a single virtual machine, and familiar tools like Hardhat, non-EVM environments are defined by their diversity. Each platform introduces its own execution model—be it Solana's parallelizable runtime, Cosmos SDK's modular app-chains, or Bitcoin's UTXO-based scripting. Expecting a direct port of your EVM knowledge will lead to friction. The first step is to approach these tools not as alternatives, but as distinct systems with unique architectural philosophies and optimization goals.

Your development workflow will differ significantly. Instead of solc and web3.js, you'll engage with toolchains like Solana's anchor framework, Cosmos' ignite CLI, or Stacks' clarinet. The deployment process, state management, and even the concept of a "transaction" can vary. For instance, on Solana, programs (smart contracts) are deployed once and are immutable, with state stored in separate, rent-paying accounts. This contrasts with the EVM model where contract code and storage are bundled. Setting up a local test environment often requires running a node specific to that chain, such as a solana-test-validator or a Cosmos simd daemon, rather than a generic EVM devnet like Anvil.

Performance characteristics and cost models are another critical area for expectation setting. Non-EVM chains often optimize for high throughput and low fees, but achieve this through different means. Solana uses a proof-of-history clock to enable parallel execution, requiring developers to think carefully about account contention. Cosmos chains have deterministic, low fees but require inter-chain communication (IBC) for interoperability. Transaction finality times can be sub-second on some chains but involve different trust assumptions than Ethereum's ~12-minute probabilistic finality. Understanding these trade-offs—between speed, decentralization, and security—is essential for designing effective applications.

Finally, the ecosystem maturity and available tooling will vary. While you might find a robust DeFi suite on Solana, a nascent social app landscape on Farcaster's Frames, or specialized data availability layers like Celestia, the developer libraries, auditing firms, and indexing services (like The Graph) may be less established than their EVM counterparts. You should anticipate spending more time reading core protocol documentation, engaging with smaller but often highly technical community Discords, and potentially contributing to open-source tooling gaps. Success with non-EVM tooling hinges on embracing its paradigm, not fighting against it.

Developing for non-EVM blockchains like Solana, Cosmos, or Bitcoin's L2s requires a significant mindset shift from the familiar Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) paradigm. The core expectation to set is that you are learning a new programming model, not just a new syntax. While EVM development centers on the account model and state changes within a single, globally synchronous virtual machine, other ecosystems use fundamentally different architectures. Solana employs a parallelizable, stateless execution model, Cosmos chains are independent, interconnected sovereign blockchains, and Bitcoin's ecosystem is built on a UTXO model. Your tools, debugging workflows, and mental model for transaction lifecycle will differ substantially.

Expect a steeper initial learning curve due to less mature tooling. The EVM ecosystem benefits from a decade of development, resulting in robust, battle-tested frameworks like Hardhat and Foundry, extensive libraries (OpenZeppelin), and deep integration in IDEs. In contrast, non-EVM toolchains are often newer and more fragmented. You might need to rely on command-line tools from core development teams, navigate less documentation, and contribute to or work around open issues in nascent SDKs. Setting up a local development environment can involve more manual configuration of validators, indexers, and network parameters specific to the chain.

Your choice of programming language will be dictated by the chain. Instead of Solidity or Vyper, you'll likely be writing Rust for Solana (using the Anchor framework), Go or Rust for Cosmos (with the Cosmos SDK), or Clarity for Stacks. This isn't just a syntax change; each language enforces the blockchain's unique security and execution patterns. For example, Solana's Rust programs require careful management of account references and data serialization, while Clarity is a decidable language designed specifically for Bitcoin smart contracts, preventing entire classes of bugs possible in Turing-complete environments.

Transaction and state management operate on different principles. In the EVM, you send a transaction to a contract address. On Solana, you compose an instruction list that references multiple accounts, specifying which are signers, which are writable, and which are read-only. Gas estimation is replaced by fee markets and priority fees. On UTXO-based chains, you're not updating a global state but creating and consuming discrete transaction outputs. Understanding these underlying data models is crucial for writing efficient and correct programs, as anti-patterns from EVM development can lead to security vulnerabilities or excessive costs.

Finally, manage expectations around the ecosystem and testing. The DeFi Lego composability you find on Ethereum is still emerging elsewhere. You may need to implement more functionality from scratch or audit dependencies more rigorously. Testing frameworks are chain-specific; for instance, Solana programs are tested against a local validator cluster using the solana-test-validator, requiring a different approach from forking mainnet in Foundry. Embrace the exploration phase, consult the official documentation and GitHub repositories as primary sources, and engage with the chain's developer community for support.

The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) established a dominant standard for smart contract execution, characterized by its stack-based architecture, 256-bit word size, and persistent global state. When working with non-EVM environments like Solana's Sealevel, Cosmos' CosmWasm, or Fuel's FuelVM, developers encounter fundamentally different paradigms. These differences are not merely syntactic but architectural, affecting gas models, state management, and program composability. Expect to learn new concepts such as parallel execution, account models based on ownership, and fee markets that decouple computation from storage.

A primary divergence is the account model. The EVM uses an externally owned account (EOA) and contract account model where contracts hold mutable storage. In contrast, Solana's model treats all accounts as data containers with explicit ownership and rent requirements, separating code (programs) from data. CosmWasm contracts are self-contained, bundling code and state. This shift requires rethinking how data is accessed and authorized, moving away from msg.sender to signature verification against declared account authorities.

Execution and fee models also differ significantly. The EVM's gas system charges for each opcode within a single-threaded execution context. Non-EVM runtimes often prioritize parallel execution and predictable costs. Solana uses a fee-per-signature model with localized fee markets, while FuelVM employs a predetermined gas system where all costs are known upfront. This impacts transaction construction and cost estimation. Developers must design transactions that explicitly declare all accounts or resources they will access to enable parallelism and avoid runtime failures.

Tooling and development workflows present another learning curve. While the EVM ecosystem is served by Hardhat, Foundry, and web3.js/ethers.js, non-EVM chains have their own SDKs and CLI tools. For Solana, you'll use the solana CLI, anchor framework, and @solana/web3.js. In Cosmos, cosmjs and ignite CLI are essential. These tools handle chain-specific operations like account derivation, transaction serialization, and program deployment differently. Setting up a local testnet and understanding chain-specific RPC methods are critical first steps.

Finally, smart contract languages and security considerations vary. The EVM is synonymous with Solidity and Vyper. Other ecosystems encourage different languages: Solana uses Rust with the solana-program crate, CosmWasm uses Rust with cosmwasm-std, and some networks support Go or TypeScript native execution. This changes the vulnerability landscape; reentrancy is an EVM-specific concern, while non-EVM developers must guard against errors in account validation, rent exhaustion, and cross-program invocation ordering. Auditing and testing patterns must adapt to the new runtime's guarantees and attack vectors.

Developing for non-EVM blockchains like Solana, Cosmos, or Aptos requires shifting from the ubiquitous JavaScript/Solidity stack to languages like Rust, Go, and Move. Each language brings a distinct philosophy and toolchain. Rust emphasizes memory safety without a garbage collector, Go prioritizes simplicity and concurrency, and Move is a resource-oriented language built for secure digital assets. Expect to invest time in learning new package managers (cargo for Rust, go mod for Go), build systems, and testing frameworks specific to these ecosystems, rather than relying on familiar tools like Hardhat or Foundry.

The security and ownership models differ significantly. In Rust, the borrow checker enforces strict compile-time rules about data ownership, preventing common bugs but requiring a new way of thinking about data flow. Go uses garbage collection and simpler concurrency primitives (goroutines, channels), making it easier to write concurrent network services for nodes or indexers. Move introduces a fundamentally different paradigm where assets are treated as unique, non-copyable resources stored directly in global storage, a stark contrast to the mutable state variables common in Solidity smart contracts.

Expect a different approach to smart contract development and testing. For Solana programs in Rust, you'll use the solana-program crate and write extensive integration tests with the solana-program-test framework. In Cosmos chains built with Go, you define modules using the Cosmos SDK, where business logic is structured around Keepers, Msgs, and Queries. For Move on networks like Aptos or Sui, you write modules and scripts, with formal verification and a bytecode verifier providing stronger security guarantees. Unit testing is built directly into the Move language via the #[test] annotation.

Tooling maturity and community resources vary. The Rust ecosystem for Solana is robust but has a steeper learning curve; resources like the Solana Cookbook are essential. The Go ecosystem for Cosmos is well-documented, with the Cosmos SDK Tutorials serving as a primary guide. The Move ecosystem is newer, so documentation is more centralized on official repositories like the Aptos Developer Portal and Move Book. You'll spend more time reading core protocol documentation and less time on third-party tutorials compared to EVM development.

Performance characteristics and cost models will influence your design. Rust programs on Solana must fit within strict compute unit budgets and account size limits, demanding efficient algorithms. Go-based Cosmos chains give you more control over gas metering and block space. Move's resource model prevents certain classes of reentrancy and duplication bugs by design, but requires careful planning of resource storage and transfer. Understanding these constraints upfront is crucial for building efficient, cost-effective applications.

To start effectively, set up a dedicated development environment for your target language, run through the official "getting started" guide to deploy a simple contract or module, and join the relevant Discord or forum. The initial productivity dip is normal. Focus on mastering the core concepts—ownership in Rust, goroutines in Go, or resources in Move—before attempting complex dApp architectures. This foundational knowledge is the key to leveraging the unique strengths of non-EVM platforms.

The first step is to abandon the assumption that all smart contract platforms operate like Ethereum. While the EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) has become a dominant standard, ecosystems like Solana, Cosmos, Starknet, and Sui have fundamentally different architectures. Your learning goal should be to understand the core design philosophy of your target chain, not just its syntax. For instance, Solana prioritizes high throughput via parallel execution and a single global state, while Cosmos emphasizes sovereign, interoperable app-chains. Expect to learn new concepts like accounts vs. wallets, transaction formats, and state management models from the ground up.

Practical learning requires hands-on engagement with the native tooling. Instead of relying on Hardhat or Foundry, you'll need to master chain-specific frameworks. Set a goal to build and deploy a simple program using the official SDKs: @solana/web3.js for Solana, cosmjs for Cosmos, or the Cairo toolchain for Starknet. Focus on the developer workflow: how to start a local node or testnet, compile code, and submit transactions. The Solana Cookbook and Cosmos SDK Tutorials are excellent starting points. Allocate time to understand the debugging and observability tools, which are often less mature than their EVM counterparts.

Finally, manage your expectations around ecosystem maturity and resources. Non-EVM chains may have fewer pre-built abstractions, less documentation, and smaller community support forums. A practical goal is to develop the skill of reading core protocol documentation and source code to find answers. Engage with the ecosystem by joining Discord channels, auditing open-source programs, and contributing to discussions. Success with non-EVM tooling is less about memorizing APIs and more about cultivating adaptability and a deep understanding of a new computational paradigm.

Setting realistic expectations is the most critical step when moving to non-EVM ecosystems like Solana, Cosmos, or Starknet. The developer experience is fundamentally different. You are not just learning a new language; you are adopting a new programming paradigm, a new transaction model, and often, a new architectural philosophy. Expect a steeper initial learning curve as you internalize concepts like Solana's account model, Cosmos IBC's relayers, or zero-knowledge proof circuits. The payoff is access to unique capabilities—higher throughput, seamless interoperability, or enhanced privacy—that are difficult or impossible to achieve on the EVM.

Your next steps should be methodical. First, deeply explore the official documentation for your target chain. For Solana, start with the Solana Cookbook. For Cosmos, the Cosmos SDK Tutorials are essential. For Starknet, the Cairo Book is your foundation. Second, join the ecosystem's developer communities on Discord or Telegram. These are invaluable for getting unvarnished feedback, understanding common pitfalls, and finding mentorship. Third, start with a small, non-critical project—a simple token, a basic swap, or a data query—to build muscle memory without the pressure of mainnet deployment.

Finally, integrate non-EVM tooling evaluation into your team's regular tech radar. The landscape evolves rapidly; new frameworks like the Move language on Aptos/Sui or tools like Anchor for Solana are constantly improving the developer experience. By maintaining a learning mindset, engaging with the community, and starting with manageable projects, you can effectively harness the power of these alternative chains and position yourself at the forefront of blockchain innovation.