4 ms·

I have no good reason to know about "full formal chains," and yet attempting to read the article still managed to grind my programmer ego into the dirt. :) Majo

I have no good reason to know about "full formal chains," and yet attempting to read the article still managed to grind my programmer ego into the dirt. :) Major respect to people who operate in that world. Related to Nim in general: I'm excited to use Nim more. Prior to finding Nim, I had this list of languages to explore in more depth: Python, Ruby, Lisp, Pascal (though I still plan to explore those). Oh, and find a good scripting language, in addition to one from the compiled language group. Oh, and avoid anything too "enterprise". So if you know anything about Nim, you know why this feels pretty amazing.

aEverr 6y ago
What's wrong with "anything too enterprise"?
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  I used to deploy and support enterprise software, which I chose from a contingency point of view: More users, more important users, and thus a lesser chance of being "wrong" about the choice of software. I had some good experiences, some bad. Then I tried non-enterprise software. I picked out some lightweight tools and platforms and swore I'd drive them into the ground and get to the same goals, just to see what I could do without the enterprise overhead components. This experience practically changed my life--lightweight has been _the_ way to go for me ever since, whether by hook or by crook.
  - elcritch 6y ago
    You might consider Elixir for scripting / systems language as well. LiveView is lightweight but allows amazingly quick Web-dev. Nim incorporates some Pascal concepts too. There's also a nice package to write native functions for Elixir in Nim [1]. 1: https://github.com/wltsmrz/nimler https://github.com/wltsmrz/nimler
saghm 6y ago
> Python, Ruby, Lisp, Pascal (though I still plan to explore those). Oh, and find a good scripting language, in addition to one from the compiled language group It's interesting that you want to explore Python and Ruby more but seem to consider finding a good scripting language as a separate goal. They're both definitely scripting languages, so if you don't expect either to be good, why do you want to explore them more?
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  Could you clarify? I couldn't relate these back to my comment: * but seem to consider ... separate goal * if you don't expect either to be good
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pansa2 6y ago
    Your post could be read as though you have two completely separate goals: 1. Explore Python, Ruby etc. 2. Find a good scripting language.
  - saghm 6y ago
    Sorry for the confusion; the part of the comment I was responding to was this: > I had this list of languages to explore in more depth: Python, Ruby, Lisp, Pascal (though I still plan to explore those). Oh, and find a good scripting language, in addition to one from the compiled language group. The phrasing of "oh, and find a good scripting language" makes it sound like that's a completely separate goal than exploring Python, Ruby, etc. in depth. It reads to me like you plan to explore those four languages, then afterwards go find a good scripting language. This doesn't seem like it would be necessary if you find either Python or Ruby to be a good scripting language when you explore them, which implies that you don't expect to have found either of them to be good. Given that, I was curious about your motivation to explore those languages if you didn't expect them to be good. Based on your confusion, it seems like you weren't intending these to be read as separate goals. I'm still not sure why you'd explicitly call out "finding a good scripting language" after mentioning you wanted to explore Python and Ruby, but my initial question appears not to be relevant.

aEverr 6y ago

What's wrong with "anything too enterprise"?

themodelplumber 6y ago
I used to deploy and support enterprise software, which I chose from a contingency point of view: More users, more important users, and thus a lesser chance of being "wrong" about the choice of software. I had some good experiences, some bad. Then I tried non-enterprise software. I picked out some lightweight tools and platforms and swore I'd drive them into the ground and get to the same goals, just to see what I could do without the enterprise overhead components. This experience practically changed my life--lightweight has been _the_ way to go for me ever since, whether by hook or by crook.
- elcritch 6y ago
  You might consider Elixir for scripting / systems language as well. LiveView is lightweight but allows amazingly quick Web-dev. Nim incorporates some Pascal concepts too. There's also a nice package to write native functions for Elixir in Nim [1]. 1: https://github.com/wltsmrz/nimler https://github.com/wltsmrz/nimler

saghm 6y ago

> Python, Ruby, Lisp, Pascal (though I still plan to explore those). Oh, and find a good scripting language, in addition to one from the compiled language group It's interesting that you want to explore Python and Ruby more but seem to consider finding a good scripting language as a separate goal. They're both definitely scripting languages, so if you don't expect either to be good, why do you want to explore them more?

themodelplumber 6y ago
Could you clarify? I couldn't relate these back to my comment: * but seem to consider ... separate goal * if you don't expect either to be good
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pansa2 6y ago
  Your post could be read as though you have two completely separate goals: 1. Explore Python, Ruby etc. 2. Find a good scripting language.
- saghm 6y ago
  Sorry for the confusion; the part of the comment I was responding to was this: > I had this list of languages to explore in more depth: Python, Ruby, Lisp, Pascal (though I still plan to explore those). Oh, and find a good scripting language, in addition to one from the compiled language group. The phrasing of "oh, and find a good scripting language" makes it sound like that's a completely separate goal than exploring Python, Ruby, etc. in depth. It reads to me like you plan to explore those four languages, then afterwards go find a good scripting language. This doesn't seem like it would be necessary if you find either Python or Ruby to be a good scripting language when you explore them, which implies that you don't expect to have found either of them to be good. Given that, I was curious about your motivation to explore those languages if you didn't expect them to be good. Based on your confusion, it seems like you weren't intending these to be read as separate goals. I'm still not sure why you'd explicitly call out "finding a good scripting language" after mentioning you wanted to explore Python and Ruby, but my initial question appears not to be relevant.