Let me question Java/Go/Nim readability... What is more readable?
addConstraint(x.plus(y).lessThanOrEqual(x.times(newConst(5).plus(z))
Run
or
addConstraint(x + t <= x * (5 + z))
Run
I would say, if you want to write readable code nim
> Human beings write code.
YMMV, but most devs I know read a lot more code than they write - their own and
others' \- optimizing for human reading seems like a reasonable priority then,
if you're trying to save time.. it compounds too - if a dev is able to read
somebody else's code, they might
I think encouraging the use of `nimpretty` and extending its features could
subdue a lot of criticism currently directed at Nim. It can even have options
for consistency in things like:
* Identifier casing / underscore style.
* Forcing explicit module prefixes (probably the biggest issue
Also note the command-line utility, `nimpretty`, which will not fix upper/lower
case but will at least make your indentation consistent, similar to `gofmt`.
Thanks, I saw tolower in some nim word count demo, maybe it was outdated.
Can you please also explain about the types, is there any convention to its
naming string vs Natural \- why one is lowercased and another is not?
It is written `toLower`, see
[https://nim-lang.org/docs/theindex.html#toLower](https://nim-lang.org/docs/theindex.html#toLower)
The type names all follow capitalization except for the really common one we
found to annoying to type this way. They also predate our style guide,
Just checked out Nim, lots of things and design decision that I like about the
language.
But I noticed that there are some inconsistencies with how things are named,
example: function names tolower vs toSeq or types string vs Natural \- really
weird. Why in some cases they start with capital
