That said, anyone looking into a completely static typed language that has nice ergonomics, is easy to pick up but has enough depth to keep you busy for weeks on end, and is versatile enough to be used for anything, do yourself a favor and give Nim a try.
For instance people have been trying to make a memory safe C for a long time, just recently we got
which has high compatibility and relatively good performance for that kind of thing. The strength of Python is that so many people are trying things with it.
Nobody's talking about porting billions of lines of code, for all we know it's just for personal projects, or a learning experience.
This kind of replies is like killing an idea before it's even started, smells like the sunk cost fallacy.
OTOH I do understand the weight of a currently existing corpus in production, evidence is the ton of COBOL code still running. But still, your reply kind of sucks.
am i the only person in the room that can read tone? please tell me what is the force of this statement in what i've responded:
> If you want static compilation, use a language and libraries built with that assumption as a ground rule.
is this an imperative only for hobbyists? not sure.
> This kind of replies is like killing an idea before it's even started, smells like the sunk cost fallacy.
there is no idea - that's exactly my whole point. tear it down and build it again is not an idea.
I didn't choose Nim because I was an evangelist; I had only toyed with it twice before. After much evaluating (and wrestling an ultra-frustrating previous attempt at a Rust rewrite my predecessor had tried), Nim surfaced as the best tool for the specific job. And it still is. It doesn't have to be our entire product stack; it's doing a small subset of very important jobs, doing them well, and is invoked by other languages that do their jobs better as web servers and such. A modular stack helps each language and tool shine where it works best.