61–70 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As unwind suggested, they just get transformed down to global functions with unique names. Here's the actual C code generated: https://gist.github.com/def-/0fe87bf1d35102c62d3b#file-nest-...
What about variables nested within these functions then? Is scope enforced? i.e. you can reach back to variable aa in function a() from nested d() but can't reach variable dd in d() from a()?
Nim has some good ideas but I can't get over the syntax: - Significant whitespace, but tabs are forbidden - No block comments, save for `discard """ ... """` - Identifiers are case and underscore-insensitive (FOO_BAR === fooBar === fo_ob_ar)
> - Identifiers are case and underscore-insensitive (FOO_BAR === fooBar === fo_ob_ar) In the language design stages who in the world thought this would be a good idea? Even PHP doesn't do that.
foo_bar = blah
foobar = blah
fooBar = blah
That's someone you really don't want to be coding anywhere near, because it leads to really, really confusing code. So nim is just enforcing not being able to do it it as a language.
I 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?
Nim has some good ideas but I can't get over the syntax: - Significant whitespace, but tabs are forbidden - No block comments, save for `discard """ ... """` - Identifiers are case and underscore-insensitive (FOO_BAR === fooBar === fo_ob_ar)
> - Identifiers are case and underscore-insensitive (FOO_BAR === fooBar === fo_ob_ar) In the language design stages who in the world thought this would be a good idea? Even PHP doesn't do that.
For a new language, I feel like one could have just forced one style unto the users, but that's just me talking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Identifiers are case and underscore-insensitive (FOO_BAR === fooBar === fo_ob_ar) In the language design stages who in the world thought this would be a good idea? Even PHP doesn't do that.
Let's be realistic. If you have somebody naming variables: foo_bar = blah foobar = blah fooBar = blah That's someone you really don't want to be coding anywhere near, because it leads to really, really confusing code. So nim is just enforcing not being able to do it it as a language.
go format is a much better solution to the same problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Identifiers are case and underscore-insensitive (FOO_BAR === fooBar === fo_ob_ar) In the language design stages who in the world thought this would be a good idea? Even PHP doesn't do that.
Let's be realistic. If you have somebody naming variables: foo_bar = blah foobar = blah fooBar = blah That's someone you really don't want to be coding anywhere near, because it leads to really, really confusing code. So nim is just enforcing not being able to do it it as a language.
The best case for usability is that this "feature" never used, which makes it an odd design choice. The worst case is that the feature is used frequently, there is no clear language norm, visually scanning for variables is harder, search and replace requires dedicated tools, and subtle bugs abound. Far better (in my personal opinion) to make identifiers case sensitive and enforce consistency with style guidelines and code "prettifiers".
The current Nim approach is being called cs:partial (case sensitive partial) and makes the first letter case sensitive but all others insensitive. This like an awkward compromise, and needlessly complicated. The best proposal I've seen suggests making "_x" equivalant to "X" (underscore is an alias for "next letter is capital"). But I don't see it as better than case insensitive plus strong code conventions.
Just add autocompletion and syntax checking for the major editors and people will start adopting it.