I followed the opposite route: tried Nim and liked it a lot, then switched to Julia. Perhaps my typical usage of a scientific language is quite different from y

I followed the opposite route: tried Nim and liked it a lot, then switched to Julia. Perhaps my typical usage of a scientific language is quite different from yours. In my case, what drove me away from Nim was the fact that even small features of the language keep changing in no controlled waya. It was 2014, and commits related to some obscure feature were subtly changing the behaviour of apparently unrelated stuff. Julia changed a lot in the last years, but in a very controlled way, and always sticking to semantic versioning. In 2014, Nim 1.0 was said to be behind the corner, yet only a few weeks ago the first RC for version 1.0 was released (Nim 0.20), and it still broke some basic stuff like bitshift operators. Moreover, the lack of scientific libraries in Nim was more severe wrt Julia. Sure, writing C bindings in Nim is easy, but it is not a zero-effort job: you have to properly test them to check that types get converted correctly, and you have to write some documentation. Some guy is currently checking the quality of Nim libraries [1], and he gave very low scores for a few libraries of mine (rightly so, IMO, e.g., [2]) because they lack documentation. [1] https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/5092 https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/5092 [2] https://github.com/ziotom78/nimcfitsio https://github.com/ziotom78/nimcfitsio