What makes Nim practical?
hookrace.net
What makes Nim practical?
1–10 of 132 posts
Re: What makes Nim practical?
#2I love how these new languages compile into a static binary and thereby avoid the deployment nightmares of Ruby/Python.
More of that please!
Re: What makes Nim practical?
#3Great post. I thought I'd comment just to say about the relative URL ../what-is-special-about-nim not working as intended from the homepage and the link to http://nim-lang/ which should presumably be http://nim-lang.org
Seems a shame to make such a pedantic and insubstantial comment on such an interesting article about a language I'd not come across, but thought the author might like to know.
Re: What makes Nim practical?
#4Great post. I thought I'd comment just to say about the relative URL ../what-is-special-about-nim not working as intended from the homepage and the link to http://nim-lang/ which should presumably be http://nim-lang.org Seems a shame to make such a pedantic and insubstantial comment on such an interesting article about a language I'd not come across, but thought the author might like to know.
Oops, I thought I checked all links. Thank you!
Re: What makes Nim practical?
#5I just realized something:
Nim is like a faster Python or a better Go lang
It's not really competing in quite the same space as say, D or Rust. It's like a statically typed scripting language.
Re: What makes Nim practical?
#6I just realized something: Nim is like a faster Python or a better Go lang It's not really competing in quite the same space as say, D or Rust. It's like a statically typed scripting language.
Why would you say it's not competing with D and Rust? Performance-wise Nim should be in the same ball-park, and you can do systems programming in it. For me Nim is a universal language which I can use for almost anything.
Re: What makes Nim practical?
#7I read the Nim manual a while ago (http://nim-lang.org/manual.html), back when it was Nimrod.
As a Python user, I loved it. Every single problem I had with Python, Nim seemed to have solved elegantly. Performance, distribution, typing... Everything looked perfect, and none of the Python expressiveness seemed to have been sacrificed.
But it was transpiled to C, and the abstraction was leaky. Every once in a while the manual would mention that certain structures were not supported, and it was clear C was the culprit. I think the most glaring example were nested functions, or something similar.
I thought to myself "this will bite me in the ass sooner or later" and gave up. Maybe it's time to try again. If they plugged the abstraction holes, this will be a killer language, with applications everywhere.
Re: What makes Nim practical?
#8I just realized something: Nim is like a faster Python or a better Go lang It's not really competing in quite the same space as say, D or Rust. It's like a statically typed scripting language.
Why would you say it's not competing with D and Rust? Performance-wise Nim should be in the same ball-park, and you can do systems programming in it. For me Nim is a universal language which I can use for almost anything.
D maybe, since it has a GC, but Rust not as much. A lot of defaults are different, affecting how libraries and idiomatic code are written and what situations it can be used in without turning things off or avoiding features.
Re: What makes Nim practical?
#9I just realized something: Nim is like a faster Python or a better Go lang It's not really competing in quite the same space as say, D or Rust. It's like a statically typed scripting language.
Care elaborating on why is it a better Golang?