3 ms·

You're right no dependent types, though to be fair that wasn't the only thing mentioned, and none of the other replies have yet suggested a language with depend

by arc776 6y ago

You're right no dependent types, though to be fair that wasn't the only thing mentioned, and none of the other replies have yet suggested a language with dependent types either. I was responding to: > ...great tooling and moderate performance. There are many aspects to programming languages beyond raw speed. The world has enough cookie cutter procedural and OOP languages. I'd love to see a new language from a different paradigm succeed. Nim's paradigm is fairly open (no small thanks to metaprogramming and unified function call syntax), and drops a lot of the baggage from the usual class (ahem) of OOP languages. There's loads of mainstream languages that focus entirely on OOP and I really resonate with wanting to explore different approaches to creating solutions, as I think OOP tends to colour how a language approaches problems. Seems a bit sudden to jump from my posting a reply to this as the same vein as "rewrite it in Rust". In terms of languages with existing dependent type implementations, it looks like the main options would be ATS, Agda, F*, or Idris. Some of these are pretty far away from the OOP paradigm too. Also: > Nim doesn't have them and never will https://github.com/nim-lang/RFCs/issues/172 https://github.com/nim-lang/RFCs/issues/172

littlestymaar 6y ago
> In terms of languages with existing dependent type implementations, it looks like the main options would be ATS, Agda, F, or Idris. Some of these are pretty far away from the OOP paradigm too. This* is an OK response to the original question. > Seems a bit sudden to jump from my posting a reply to this as the same vein as "rewrite it in Rust". The thing is: 90% of comments talking about Nim comes from people like you, whose entire comment history is over 90% about Nim, and most of the time, it comes in context where it's borderline irrelevant to the subject. Aggressive proselytism like this has hurt Rust a lot, and it's definitely going to hurt Nim as well if you aren't careful.
- arc776 6y ago
  My comment history is 90% talking about Nim because this is the account I talk about Nim on :) Probably it's the same for other people. My last comment was 7 months ago on the 1.0 release. It seems like when talking about a smaller language you have to walk that fine line between putting an experience of using them out there, and being a PR ambassador. I'm really not into that, but I guess that's the reality.

by arc776 6y ago

littlestymaar 6y ago

> In terms of languages with existing dependent type implementations, it looks like the main options would be ATS, Agda, F, or Idris. Some of these are pretty far away from the OOP paradigm too. This* is an OK response to the original question. > Seems a bit sudden to jump from my posting a reply to this as the same vein as "rewrite it in Rust". The thing is: 90% of comments talking about Nim comes from people like you, whose entire comment history is over 90% about Nim, and most of the time, it comes in context where it's borderline irrelevant to the subject. Aggressive proselytism like this has hurt Rust a lot, and it's definitely going to hurt Nim as well if you aren't careful.

arc776 6y ago
My comment history is 90% talking about Nim because this is the account I talk about Nim on :) Probably it's the same for other people. My last comment was 7 months ago on the 1.0 release. It seems like when talking about a smaller language you have to walk that fine line between putting an experience of using them out there, and being a PR ambassador. I'm really not into that, but I guess that's the reality.