original article: [https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/31/comparing-pythagorean-triples-in-c-d-and-rust](https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/31/comparing-pythagorean-triples-in-c-d-and-rust)/
here's nim version I proposed: see [https://github.com/atilaneves/pythagoras/pull/4](https://github.com/atilaneves/pythagoras/pull/4) sample results from the article for simple version: Simple CT (ms) RT (ms) clang debug 59 599 clang release 69 154 dmd debug 11 369 dmd release 11 153 ldc debug 31 599 ldc release 38 153 rustc0 debug 100 8445 rustc0 release 103 349 rustc1 debug 6650 rustc1 release 217 Run looks like nim release version of simple.d compiles faster and runs a tiny bit faster than D version ldc release of simple.d # note one thing I don't like about the way I wrote nim version of simple.d is how I translated this: for (int z = 1; ; ++z) foo Run into this: var z = 1 while true: foo z.inc Run it's bad for 2 reasons: * z is in outer scope instead of in a nested scope * z.inc is AFTER foo; this is bad both for cognitive load and correctness, especially when foo gets complex (eg if it has break inside it, etc)
