4 ms·
> for some established language, like Rust. Working on a "young" language, you just miss the chance of contributing to an ecosystem that's already been in deve
by jamieson-becker 7y ago
> for some established language, like Rust. Working on a "young" language, you just miss the chance of contributing to an ecosystem that's already been in development for quite some time
Would you still make this point if you were comparing...
for example, Rust and C++?
... where Rust is the "young" language? Working on such a young language (and, FWIW, Rust is younger than Nim), you might miss the chance of contributing to an ecosystem that's already been in development for quite some time.
Not every language grows up with a silver spoon from Mozilla or Google.
- 0815test 7y agoGiven that C++ is widely regarded as having unfixable problems (and even the ISO-C++ community is now basically admitting this, with the C++ Core Guidelines being nothing more than a somewhat pointless band-aid), yes I would. If C++ was fixable, Rust would not exist in the first place. (Same goes for e.g. Ada btw - if you could simply fix both the clear lack of openness in the available Ada toolchains, and its lacking anything comparable to the Rust borrow checker, Rust would also not need to exist.) I can tell why Nim was created - there is a somewhat widely felt need for a systems language (Nim is clearly targeting C/C++ compatibility) with a more Pythonic input syntax! But it's far from clear that Nim itself as it exists today is a sensible answer to these issues.
- otabdeveloper1 7y ago> is widely regarded Yeah, citation needed, d00d. > with a more Pythonic input syntax A 'more Pythonic syntax' is literally the least important requirement anybody needs in a programming language.