rules_python VS Nim

What's SV?

I honestly don't know why anyone would use that... as in what does Bazel do better than virtually anything else that can provide this functionality. But, I used to be an ops engineer in a big company which wanted everything to be Maven, regardless of whether it does it well or not. So we built and deployed with Maven a lot of weird and unrelated stuff.

Not impossible, but not anything I'd advise anyone to do on their free time.

Specifically wrt' the link you posted, if you look here: https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python/blob/main/python/... it says that only pure Python wheels are supported, but that's also a lie, they don't support half of the functionality of pure Python wheels.

So, definitely not worth using, since lots of functionality is simply not there.

Regarding bazel, the rules_python has a py_wheel rule that helps you creating wheels that you can upload to pypi (https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python/blob/52e14b78307a...).

If you want to see an approach of bazel to pypi taken a bit to the extreme you can have a look at tensorflow on GitHub to see how they do it. They don't use the above-mentioned building rule because I think their build step is quite complicated (C/C++ stuff, Vida/ROCm support, python bindings, and multiOS support all in one before you can publish to pypi).

Python support in Bazel now looks more promising with `rules_python`: https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python

`rules_go` to my understanding is great too.

Over years, Bazel is not as opinionated as before, mostly because adoptions in different orgs force it to be so.

I have personally run converted build systems to Bazel, and use it for personal projects as well.

Bazel 1.0 was released in October 2019. If you were using it "a few years ago", I'm guessing you were using a pre-1.0 version. There's not some cutoff where Bazel magically got easy to use, and I still wouldn't describe it as "easy", but the problem it solves is hard to solve well, and the community support for Bazel has gotten a lot better over the past years.

https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python

The difficulty and complexity of using Bazel is highly variable. I've seen some projects where using Bazel is just super simple and easy, and some projects where using Bazel required a massive effort (custom toolchains and the like).

load("@bazel_tools//tools/build_defs/repo:http.bzl", "http_archive") #------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Python #------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # enable python rules http_archive( name = "rules_python", url = "https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python/releases/download/0.2.0/rules_python-0.2.0.tar.gz", sha256 = "778197e26c5fbeb07ac2a2c5ae405b30f6cb7ad1f5510ea6fdac03bded96cc6f", )

22. Nim - $80,000

I think the right answer to your question would be NimLang[0]. In reality, if you're seeking to use this in any enterprise context, you'd most likely want to select the subset of C++ that makes sense for you or just use C#.

[0]https://nim-lang.org/

I don't think it's a rust-inspired language, but since it has strong typing and compiles to javascript, did you give a look at nim [0] ?

For what it takes, I find the language very expressive without the verbosity in rust that reminds me java. And it is also very flexible.

[0] : https://nim-lang.org/

I see a valid cert for https://nim-lang.org/

FYI, on the front page, https://nim-lang.org, in large type you have this:

> Nim is a statically typed compiled systems programming language. It combines successful concepts from mature languages like Python, Ada and Modula.

You better off with using a compiled language.

If you interested in a language that's compiled, fast, but as easy and pleasant as Python - I'd recommend you take a look at [Nim](https://nim-lang.org).

And to prove what Nim's capable of - here's a cool repo with 100+ cli apps someone wrote in Nim: [c-blake/bu](https://github.com/c-blake/bu)

Chapel has at least several full-time developers at Cray/HPE and (I think) the US national labs, and has had some for almost two decades. That's much more than $100k.

Chapel is also just one of many other projects broadly interested in developing new programming languages for "high performance" programming. Out of that large field, Chapel is not especially related to the specific ideas or design goals of Mojo. Much more related are things like Codon (https://exaloop.io), and the metaprogramming models in Terra (https://terralang.org), Nim (https://nim-lang.org), and Zig (https://ziglang.org).

But Chapel is great! It has a lot of good ideas, especially for distributed-memory programming, which is its historical focus. It is more related to Legion (https://legion.stanford.edu, https://regent-lang.org), parallel & distributed Fortran, ZPL, etc.