Memory safety is good. If you can make it happen, by all means you should. If you can't, it is okay to have manual memory management. There is nothing wrong with it.
Some people tend to think that C/C++ bugs result from its manual memory management. That is not entirely accurate. The occurrence of bugs correlates with the number of things that the programmer has to handle. The more things the programmer has to manage, the more likely bugs will result. Bugs are essentially programmer's lapses. When a language decides to add three new keywords, it does not result in three new additional cases. The true cost is the extra combination and permutation of the new features together with existing features. That is the true number of cases that the programmer has to deal with as the result of adding the three new keywords. In the case of C++, since the language aims to be backward compatible and the committee has no restrain in adding features, what you get is a language with 35 years worth of every imaginable features. Many end up using a subset of C++ for good reasons. In the case of Rust, can you imagine using the language if the compiler does not perform all those sophisticated analysis so that you can use the language correctly? Anyhow, my point is that if Nim has to resort to manual memory management in order to keep the language simple, there is really nothing wrong with it.
