3 ms·

I would love to see Nim succeed. I think there are a few roadblocks. The main developer being a bottleneck is one. His intense focus has led to a bunch of neat

I would love to see Nim succeed. I think there are a few roadblocks. The main developer being a bottleneck is one. His intense focus has led to a bunch of neat features, but it's also made the language a bit crazy and incoherent and, in some cases, unfinished -- as if the author lost interest halfway through. The syntax is beautiful in some places, weirdly warty in others (the {.pragma.} syntax is a particular eyesore). It's full of odd, quirky features that seem like the author had a sudden idea but never considered if it was a good one to give a permanent place in the language. At such a young age it already feels crufty. Nim is also not strict enough for my taste. Supporting nil (as default behavior) in this day and age is not really acceptable.

voaie 11y ago
+1 Nim is too messy for me. And the codegen bugs are very annoying, just like black magic. Also I don't like the Python-style with no end-marker. I'll be glad if Araq does plan to provide another syntax for Nim. But I fear the style war in the community. Things I like about Nim: 1. Unified function syntax call, which makes my code more OO-like. 2. Many customizable operators and easy to grasp operator precedence. 3. The pegs library is small but very nice. I began Nim programming with it, wrote handy grammar validators with it, and finally got parser trees in pure Nim for the ASTs. Really fun. Not much, because I hope Nim could be simpler and get the most practical features done right. I am dizzy with its syntax and STL now.