Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And before pcwalton drops in with his endless spamming about Nim not being safe, Nim being undefined Well, it is, isn't it? Is he wrong about Nim not being safe when not using Boehm GC? Does it not segfault when sending GC pointers between threads? He only jumps in, when someone claims Nim is safe or the sweet spot, or something equally wrong. Nim's pretty syntax comes with a price, just like Rust's safety comes wi…
About safe/undefined etc I think it has been answered before (there are probably more places): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9643690 Personally I am quite sick and tired of that particular "take" on Nim - why not for once criticize other parts of the language? :)
And you asked why this happens, and I answered, because Nim claims it is secure. Not more not less.
It's like saying OpenSSL is perfectly (or as good as it gets) secure, and there aren't any known vulnerabilities. That statement is going to get a strong reaction from anyone that specializes in security and reads HN (for example tpatcek).
I don't like or dislike Nim. I did like Nim's macro system, although I fear its too powerful (it seems like macros would be really easy solution in many cases).