4 ms·
I think the reasoning is sound, but this isn't an indication of either language being better than the other. Only that it's easier to look under the hood of Ni
by keslag 12y ago
I think the reasoning is sound, but this isn't an indication of either language being better than the other. Only that it's easier to look under the hood of Nim. I find Nim easier to read, and then as is with ruby, probably more productive for prototypes, but I'd like to see more use cases before I start to move in that direction. It does make me wonder if we'll ever see a Nim to rust transpiler.
- jeffreyrogers 12y ago> It does make me wonder if we'll ever see a Nim to rust transpiler. I'm not really sure what you'd get from that? They seem to share most of the same features, with rust focusing a bit more on safety via its type system. I'm personally more partial to Nim since it seems simpler to me, but Rust may be good for things I don't program regularly.
- aikah 12y ago2 different languages for 2 different use cases. Seems to me that Nim is more in league with Go and D while Rust is lower level with some syntactic sugar. Might be wrong but that's how I feel about these. Anyway it's great to have new french languages that you can still link to C libs when you need it.
- aikah 12y agoEdit: meant fresh not french ,of course.
- Mikeb85 12y agoI would agree. I don't think they compete directly, the only real similarities is they both compile to native code, and both are fast. Nim is more of a Pascal/Python/Coffeescript hybrid with easy interoperability with C and nice tooling.
- pcwalton 12y ago> It does make me wonder if we'll ever see a Nim to rust transpiler. Impossible, unless you compile to the unsafe Rust dialect. Nim is not memory safe in multithreaded mode, last I checked, while Rust is. So (unsafe) things expressible in Nim will not be expressible in Rust, because Rust's type system prevents them.