4 ms·
That's a great list, but the question was about stuff that's not in Haskell (among others) so a few nitpicks: * Haskell can run regular code at compile-time (B
by Peaker 11y ago
That's a great list, but the question was about stuff that's not in Haskell (among others) so a few nitpicks:
* Haskell can run regular code at compile-time (But it is slow, using ghci/TH)
* Haskell can add optimizations (rewrite rules and plugins). I think Haskell innovated rewrite rules and Nim probably was inspired by that?
* Binding to C easily is also a Haskell feature
* Type safe sets and arrays of enums: Is this not just a library? Haskell sets and arrays of enums are type-safe by default?
* Unified call syntax is true of Haskell too
* Compile to Javascript -- Haskell can do that too
- def- 11y agoI'm a big Haskell fan (it was my favorite language before discovering Nim), but here's my personal list of Nim advantages over Haskell: - Predictable performance (lazy evaluation is problematic) - Easy to achieve high performance - Easier to read, even for non-specialists - I'm much more productive in it - Multi-paradigm: Nim is mostly imperative, but OO and functional can be mixed as well. http://hookrace.net/blog/conclusion-on-nim/ http://hookrace.net/blog/conclusion-on-nim/
- progman 11y ago> I'm much more productive in it That's the point! I know many languages and Nim is by far the most productive one. It's like coding in Python with the assurance that the compiler will catch many errors that would cause runtime errors in Python. That assurance makes coding in Nim faster than in Python because I don't have to think so much about avoiding runtime errors.