nim-stint VS nimpy

> 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.

I mean honestly, the closest language to Mojo really is Nim. In the latest Lex Fridman interview [0] when he talks about his ideas behind Mojo it pretty much sounds like he's describing Nim. Ok fair, he wants Mojo to be a full superset of Python, but honestly with nimpy [1] our Python interop is about as seamless as it can really be (without being a superset, which Mojo clearly is not yet). Even the syntax of Mojo looks a damn lot like Nim imo. Anyway, I guess he has the ability to raise enough funds to hire enough people to write his own language within ~2 years so as not have to follow random peoples whim about where to take the language. So I guess I can't blame him. But as someone who's pretty invested in the Nim community it's quite a shame to see such a hyped language receive so much attention by people who should really check out Nim. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[0]: https://youtu.be/pdJQ8iVTwj8?si=LfPSNDq8UKKIsJd3

[1]: https://github.com/yglukhov/nimpy

You can also do this in Nim, which basically means you can write any program you could in Python with libraries in Nim. https://github.com/yglukhov/nimpy

Ones that have not been mentioned so far:

nlvm is an unofficial LLVM backend: https://github.com/arnetheduck/nlvm

npeg lets you write PEGs inline in almost normal PEG notation: https://github.com/zevv/npeg

futhark provides for much more automatic C interop: https://github.com/PMunch/futhark

nimpy allows calling Python code from Nim and vice versa: https://github.com/yglukhov/nimpy

questionable provides a lot of syntax sugar surrounding Option/Result types: https://github.com/codex-storage/questionable

ratel is a framework for embedded programming: https://github.com/PMunch/ratel

cps allows arbitrary procedure rewriting to continuation passing style: https://github.com/nim-works/cps

chronos is an alternative async/await backend: https://github.com/status-im/nim-chronos

zero-functional fixes some inefficiencies when chaining list operations: https://github.com/zero-functional/zero-functional

owlkettle is a declarative macro-oriented library for GTK: https://github.com/can-lehmann/owlkettle

A longer list can be found at https://github.com/ringabout/awesome-nim.

I use Python daily for its massive momentum for scientific stuff, but I also use Nim for everything else. Nim compiles to C, and making Python native modules with Nim is easy with Nimpy.

If are a data scientist and come from python take a look at nimpy, a great way to just import python libraries and use them! https://github.com/yglukhov/nimpy Numpy, pandas, pytorch all usable in Nim.

Nim is the ultimate glue language, use libraries from anything: python, c, js, objc.

I've come to really enjoy programming in Nim. Note that Nim is very different language despite sharing a similar syntax. However, I feel it keeps a lot of the "feel" of Python 2 days of being a fairly simple neat language but that lets you do things at compile time (like compile time duck typing).

There's a good Python -> Nim bridge: https://github.com/yglukhov/nimpy

See this nimpy issue about it: https://github.com/yglukhov/nimpy/issues/43

It has pretty good integration with python, either for having your main code in python and writing small hot functions as nim and importing via nimporter or using python libraries in nim via nimpy.

Related: Nimpy[0] provides an easy way to write Python extensions in Nim, which manages the ABI side very well.

Python 2 is now gone, but until it was, Nimpy was an easy way to write Python extension modules that only needed to be compiled once, and would work with any of your installed Python 2 and Python 3. Magic.

[0] https://github.com/yglukhov/nimpy