rust-orphan-rules VS Nim

Well, unless someone comes up with better, compatible rules, the orpan rules are gonna stick around.

Additionally there are other issues with rust currently. Compile time code (ala constexpr) is not up to par with C++20 (not really close). The const generic aren't as powerful as C++20 which added non primitive non type template parameters (though with you stuck with C++14, it actually is significantly better than what you have, again, if you're going to use C++, just use 20). Generics accepting closures is a bit more of an ordeal in rust, compared to C++. Also C++'s Duck Typed templates allow for some uncharacteristically strong typing compared to what is expressible in Rust generics currently. Now, duck typed templates do have major downsides, for example the entire feature of concepts is completely irrelevant in rust, but required for sane DTT type bounds, but they also have major upsides. Rust currently doesn't have "negative trait bounds", basically "This objected does not implement this trait, or std::enable_if> or the equivalent concepts implementation. Rust also doesn't have trait specializations, basically template specialization. Do note all features I've talked about to this point have nightly options, they just are at various stages of being stable/complete. Another issue is the orphan rule, though this is kind of a problem in C++ too in some respects, and that's unlikely to change drastically, since there are legitimate reasons for it's existence. For a lot of code none of these things are big deals, others they are, which is why you find inconsistent feed back on these issues.

Not that simple... hence why Orphan rule is still in-place. The struct wrapper was implemented in Rust as a temporary safe work-around. However, they are making progress on a solution: https://github.com/Ixrec/rust-orphan-rules/issues/1

That's still not an entirely complete explanation because there's more nuanced situations which aren't completely foreign but are foreign enough that if allowed, two crates could write the same impls. Some of the definitions are still unofficial as far as am I'm aware. For the best reference I’ve seen so far see this for more details.

In our crate the compiler doesn't know when calling MyTrait methods on MyStruct whether to use the implementation defined in crate 3 or crate 4! Rust has a set of orphan rules to prevent this situation from happening.

Sadly because of the rusts orphan rule you cannot implement a Trait on a Type where you do not own one or the other. So, apart from upstream contributions your only options are either a new Trait or a new Type.

If anyone is looking for additional background about orphan rules, check out https://github.com/Ixrec/rust-orphan-rules

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.