EUL
nim-stint
EUL | nim-stint | |
---|---|---|
1 | 3 | |
6 | 77 | |
- | - | |
3.1 | 7.0 | |
12 months ago | about 2 months ago | |
C++ | Nim | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 only | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
EUL
nim-stint
- Stint (Stack-based multiprecision integers)
-
Why static languages suffer from complexity
> I think the message is more nuanced
I thought it was more nuanced too as they were explaining how integer types can be derived, until I finished the article, and they really did just seem to be complaining that there's a mismatch between compile time and run time.
Dynamic types don't really solve the problems they mention as far as I can tell either (perhaps I am misunderstanding), they just don't provide any guarantees at all and so "work" in the loosest sense.
> otherwise wouldn't lisp with its homoiconicity and compile time macros fit the bill perfectly?
That's a good point, I do wonder why they didn't mention Lisp at all.
> we don't have a solution yet
What they want to do can, as far as I can see, be implemented in Nim easily in a standard, imperative form, without any declarative shenanigans. Indeed, it is implemented here: https://github.com/nim-lang/Nim/blob/ce44cf03cc4a78741c423b2...
Of course, that implementation is more complex than the one in the article because it handles a lot more.
At the end of the day, it's really a capability mismatch at the language level and the author even states this:
> Programming languages ought to be rethought.
I'd argue that Nim has been 'rethought' specifically to address the issues they mention. The language was built with extension in mind, and whilst the author states that macros are a bad thing, I get the impression this is because most languages implement them as tacked on substitution mechanisms (Rust/D), and/or are declarative rather than "simple" imperative processes. IMHO, most people want to write general code for compile time work (like Zig), not learn a new sub-language. The author states this as well.
Nim has a VM for running the language at compile time so you can do whatever you want, including the recursive type decomposition (for example: https://github.com/status-im/nim-stint). It also has 'real' macros that aren't substitutions but work on the core AST directly, can inspect types at compile time, and is a system language but also high level. It seems to solve their problems, but of course, they simply might not have used or even heard of it.
- Donald Knuth’s Algorithm D, its implementation in Hacker’s Delight and elsewhere
What are some alternatives?
Fermat - A library providing math and statistics operations for numbers of arbitrary size.
constantine - Constantine: modular, high-performance, zero-dependency cryptography stack for proof systems and blockchain protocols.
Algorithms - A collection of data structures and algorithms written in C++ with comments and links to further reading.
nimbus-eth1 - Nimbus: an Ethereum Execution Client for Resource-Restricted Devices
fplll - Lattice algorithms using floating-point arithmetic
tiny-bignum-c - Small portable multiple-precision unsigned integer arithmetic in C
Seperating-kids-from-fighting-in-group-size-N - This function lists the permutations in which from the first arrangement, no student fights the same pair of students twice
libtorsion - C crypto library
GLM - OpenGL Mathematics (GLM)
hlslpp - Math library using hlsl syntax with SSE/NEON support
go - The Go programming language