5 ms·

> If Nim doesn't change the major safety problems with C, why bother? Probably for all the myriad of reasons that don't have to do with safety, and in which Ni

• davorb 11y ago
  I'd actually like to see someone do a Nim vs Rust. We've seen plenty of rust vs go and rust vs c++.
  • def- 11y ago
    In my opinion Rust and Nim would make a nice team as complementary languages: Use Rust for everything that needs high safety and high performance at the same time, Nim for everything else. https://andreaferretti.github.io/on-rust-and-nim/ https://andreaferretti.github.io/on-rust-and-nim/ https://arthurtw.github.io/2015/01/12/quick-comparison-nim-vs-rust.html https://arthurtw.github.io/2015/01/12/quick-comparison-nim-v...
    • progman 11y ago
      > In my opinion Rust and Nim would make a nice team as complementary languages I don't think so because the syntax is very different. You would have to learn two languages, and if you know Rust and you need it for safety reasons -- then why not code everything in Rust? Nim is very practical by design. I think some practical additional security features in Nim (pre- and post conditions for instance) make more sense than interaction with Rust or Haskell. Somewhere I read that the Nim developers plan to add pure functions (like Haskell). This would be the first step in that direction.
      • def- 11y ago
        You can use the noSideEffect pragma for that already.