Nim thread

>>61083347
Nim has really excellent syntax, and the metaprogramming stuff seems incredibly useful if you actually learn any of it.

I preordered the first Nim book getting published by dom and plan on trying to develop something in the future with Nim as a backbone, but presently I've only done small exercises with it.

The big issue presently is the general lack of libraries, but you can wrap C stuff for use with Nim so it isn't so bad.

>>61083347
>Nim vs D
Nim hasn't reached v1 yet and D is really mature, in fact D is the most mature and stable languages off all you mentioned.
Syntax:
I prefer D's syntax more because it is not whitespace sensitive. This allows you to declare really complex functions in a nice and readable format. Nim follows python's syntax. It may look like Nim's is more "productive" but in the long run you may want to have your functions enclosed by brackets.
Nim's lambda function signatures don't make any sense.
Libraries:
D is compatible to C and even C++ (bidirectional). D is more rich because it's more mature. For example Nim's sequtils is far less rich than D's range and iterator
IDE:
Both languages have decent IDE features but Nim does not have a format tool. It doesn't probably have a stable linter yet
Performance:
Even though Nim compiles to C, it has GC overhead. Nim has an immature GC and it's not threadsafe. D's GC is not smart but it has had tons of tweaks. D compiles to LLVM directly with LDC. Recently D got into the official GCC, so I think D is the winner here. In my microbenchmarks D almost always was faster than Nim, by a very short margin.
Others:
D and Nim aren't quite the same. D is a beast that was created by compiler engineers like Walter bright (wrote the first C++ compiler) and Andrei Alexendrecu (Wrote the famous "Modern C++ design" and considered as one of the best template wizards in existence). Both are veteran C++ programmers and a language created by them is practical, cohesive and robust. D is way too much feature rich in comparison to Nim, but Nim is pretty comfy. D is scrip-table, it doesn't force any programming paradigm and doesn't take away user freedom. It's fair to compare D to Rust and C++ more than Nim because Nim isn't quite "born" yet.

In all honesty I'd like Nim to replace Python almost everywhere.

>Nim vs Rust
Rust wins in every single aspect apart from the syntax. Rust's syntax is horrible, and it has a very steep learning curve. Rust makes C++ look like child's play and it's actually shaping up to replace C++ in the next decade (sorry, C++ fanboys of /g/)

Rust's borrow checker and lifetime oriented programming is so unique (actually it's not, Cyclone taught Rust all these) and effective (No need of GC AND no need of manual memory management), C++ and Swift recently stole a portion of these concepts.

Rust's biggest downfall is it's lack of productivity in comparison to Nim.

>Crystal, Terra vs Nim
Never tried them. I think Ruby fans would love Crystal but I think Nim is just better

>Go
What and embarrassment of a language. Nim is actually better because it is set towards the right direction.
Why Go isn't good? see
https://github.com/ksimka/go-is-not-good


In the end it all comes down to the user of the language. If you can use Nim properly you shouldn't have any of the problems.

I like D more, it's more practical and comfy (not as much as Nim at times)

But simple things like importing is what kills nim for me:

Import os (imports everything from "os" in Nim)
Import std.range (Imports only the things that are used in "range" in D)

>>61084466
>>61084429
interesting. those are some good points

>>61084429
D was also just accepted into GCC. It's in the big leagues now.

ITT: quality languages that will be mainstream after 40 years

>>61083402
>nim has really excellent syntax

>the `discard` keyword

[citation needed]

>>61084466
Lack of productivity will be the thing that kills Rust. Devs are too dumb for things like the BC.