I agree with Araq's statement and in some cases talking bad about language XYZ indeed is trying to lift up ones own or preferred language (or at least strongly looks like it). But there's a big fat "but": Better languages, at least to some significant degree, are often created _because_ of bad things in other languages and/or the desire to avoid those problems.
On a somewhat deeper level a language is a much more complex thing that just some technical points. Many factors, some of them often not seen, like psychology and philosophy, play important roles. Also the very reason for quite some languages having been created - incl. Rust - is in the dark spots of what was available. In the case of Rust, for instance, it was (to word it neutrally) the memory handling related problems of C and many of its children and derivates. I see in Nim a language that really and properly (and often elegantly which isn't just pleasant but a well established albeit not easily tangible symptom of engineering quality) solved many urging problems by recognizing and analyzing them and then creating a much better solution. In other words: Nim is great because Araq _did_ see and experience the poor choices and smelling points of other languages - and then - successfully - tried to do it much better. @JD I also didn't like your statement. Not because you are not right; you probably are to a large degree. But because I was missing the connection to Nim and the constructive motivation. I personally detest Rust. But it's neither necessary nor worthwhile to tell that - unless the perspective is constructive: "how can or did we do it better? What should be learned from Rust's poor choices and approach? Why is it bad in the first place and how could it be done better?". That is what I missed in your post. That said one should also be fair enough to say that Rust does have some good points where it's much better than C or C++. In particular Rust at least addresses the ownership question (wrt. memory). I don't think that their approach is the right one but I _do_ recognize that they did some analysis and seriously tried to do better.
