2 ms·

Well I don't have a negative view of Nim in general, and I wouldn't describe it as a hodgepodge. I would describe Nim as a language that doesn't hold you back a

Well I don't have a negative view of Nim in general, and I wouldn't describe it as a hodgepodge. I would describe Nim as a language that doesn't hold you back and doesn't save you from yourself. Personally I refrain from using most of the complex stuff, but when I need it I love how it is there for me. For example, the shared objects make it very easy for me to just roll things in Nim then link them to Ruby through the FFI. Will your average developer need these features? No. But the average developer writes ASP, PHP, or JavaScript. I'd rather be formidable even if it means doing the work.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"and I wouldn't describe it as a hodgepodge. I would describe Nim as a language that doesn't hold you back and doesn't save you from yourself." That's kind of vague. When I say hodgepodge, I mean they threw in all kinds of capabilities into the language without integrating them into a consistent whole. The examples I gave leave no surprises. What you see reading others' code is even expected. You could do about anything in a variant of PreScheme that you could do in Nim given almost any language feature gets ported to a LISP as a library. Except, it's all consistent in its style, syntax, and techniques for doing whatever it does. Nim seems to lack that very-significant property that affects uptake, ease of formal analysis, and maintenance burden. So, the language is powerful. People are doing neat things with it. Just lacks design traits that have historically been important for programming languages in terms of getting and keeping developers/users.