4 ms·
For me it's more: what does it offer over Crystal (apart from being freshly 1.0). Crystal seems a lot nicer and a bit more, hum, uniform. Nim seems to have a lo
by c-cube 7y ago
For me it's more: what does it offer over Crystal (apart from being freshly 1.0). Crystal seems a lot nicer and a bit more, hum, uniform. Nim seems to have a lot of features to be aware of, and doesn't have type-safe nil.
- lmm 7y agoWell Crystal is newer than Nim and gives me even more of a "what is the unique advantage of this language" feeling. As to the specific point, Crystal may be nil safe but union types have many of the same problems as unchecked null (particularly when used with generics). Nim has compiler-enforced not-nil types plus true sum types (and therefore an option type), which make it possible to program in a completely safe way - though I'm not sure how well the standard library supports that approach; I would certainly prefer a language that didn't have null at all, as OCaml does.