Interestingly, you cannot do that for now. All you can do is to do something
like
when not defined(cpp):
{.error: "compile via the 'cpp' command".}
My current plans for `method` are:
* Change the semantics slightly: Only the first argument is considered in the
dynamic lookups. Nothing else will change really.
The only problem with that is that then we have 3 ways to do dynamic binding:
1. via closures.
2. via proc type fields with
**bpr:** _Lack of inheritance (and generics!) in Go was bemoaned by many, yet
I'd say in terms of adoption it's been a success._
Go de facto _has_ inheritance via embedded types and delegation. The
differences in semantics (such as lack of open recursion) are an annoyance, but
can be worked aro
@Jehan
> The context here is people transitioning from other languages.
I believe I understand your point, I just don't agree with your conclusion.
Technical issues don't seem to be all that important for adoption outside of
the small initial group of early adopters, where it's very important.
* Language:Claim To FameFailure Point
* Crystal:Slick As Ruby Fast as C;..No Windows Support(Yet)
* Red:Full Stack, EASY! gui;...Documentation LACKING!
* Nim:Multi-platform, Great GC;.Nothing significant
**bpr:** _I doubt that that's the biggest problem._
The context here is people _transitioning from other languages_. In this
regard, OOP is probably the single biggest impedance mismatch. The point I'm
getting at is that Nim supports pretty much all other major features that you
typically find
> If I had to guess, I think the biggest problem with Nim is its really unclear
> approach to OOP.
I doubt that that's the biggest problem.
> No matter how much forum warrioring goes on about OOP, the reality is that
> traditional class-based OOP (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) is present i
