Rust focuses very much on low/no-overhead memory safety (especially memory safety without a GC), while Nimrod seems to be more focused at more convenient low-le

Rust focuses very much on low/no-overhead memory safety (especially memory safety without a GC), while Nimrod seems to be more focused at more convenient low-level programming, but without quite such a strong push for memory safety and reliable very high performance (e.g. GC is compulsory for safety). That's not to say that Rust isn't convenient, but the quest for strong memory safety & performance guarantees doesn't come for free: satisfying the borrow checker can get a little tricky at times. An example of this: Rust's type system is designed to allow things like building a safe shared memory abstraction[1], that is, a shared memory type that enforces non-thread-safe data can't be shared without being inside a mutex. My reading of the Nimrod FAQ[2] ("An unsafe shared memory heap is also provided") implies this isn't (as easily) possible in Nimrod. (Disclaimer: I know a lot of Rust, but very little Nimrod.) [1]: http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/sync/struct.Arc.html http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/sync/struct.Arc.html [2]: http://nimrod-lang.org/question.html http://nimrod-lang.org/question.html