On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 15:37:46 UTC, Chris wrote:
I am interested in Nim and welcome it. But it's too early to
say whether it's good or mediocre.
Yeah, I think it would be nice if one could change the culture of
programming so that people easily could combine any 2 languages
in the same project. But that takes either significant
creator-goodwill/cooperation or platforms like .NET/JVM. I could
see myself wanting to do some things in "Prolog", some things in
"Lisp" and some things in "C". Today that takes too much FFI work.
A problem that both Nim and D share is that they aim broad. I
think that makes it a harder sell as that tend to make the
language more complex and unpolished. I think most languages that
gain traction by starting focused. C was very focused on OS dev.
C++ piggy-backed on that by adding abstractions. Php was very
focused on web scripting. Perl on text processing. Erlang on
fault tolerance. Smalltalk on interactive programming. Pascal
piggybacked on Algol going too big IIRC. Turbo Pascal's success
was IDE focused IMO.
I wonder, though, when you look Nim up on Wikipedia it states:
Influenced by
Ada, Modula-3, Lisp, C++, Object Pascal, Python, Oberon
Did they really never get any inspiration from D?? I wonder.
Seems a bit odd, but well.
Probably related to the main creator's programming-experience,
but as far as credits go one should really credit the first
language/author to bring about a concept. (e.g. Lisp, Simula,
BCPL etc)
