From one of blog posts [0]: Nim Nim is the language that impressed me the most in this batch. Everything I thought would be a problem (significant whi

From one of blog posts [0]: Nim Nim is the language that impressed me the most in this batch. Everything I thought would be a problem (significant whitespace, choose-your-own-function syntax, intermediate C compliation step) didn't bother me at all. The small sample of the standard library I played with was a little quirky, but Nim seems like excellent bang for your buck. Notes: - Release binary was only 120 KB (linked against libc)! - Thought I'd dislike the syntax, but it was fine - Really easy to get started, many things "just worked" (e.g. grabbing a slice of an array) - Didn't have to specify too many types, but still ran fast - Fast compilation - Didn't like the "hints" it spews out during compilation, even for nim r (build and run) - Why did all take an anonymous function, but foldl took just an expression (with a and b seemingly picked out of thin air) -- is foldl a macro? - Nim might be a good language for hobby projects because it's easy, fast, and produces small binaries - I wonder what the debugging experience is like -- if it's decent, I might be writing a lot more Nim in the future! This exactly my thoughts on Nim and why I use it almost exclusively for all my hobby projects. 0-https://log.schemescape.com/posts/programming-languages/100-languages-9.html https://log.schemescape.com/posts/programming-languages/100-...