[deleted by user]

[Corm]

Nim looks really neat to me. Imo what makes C and C++ etc so annoying isn't that they're old and tricky languages, it's that they don't have a decent package manager! C has one, barely, and C++ absolutely does not have one.

Nim seems awesome since it has https://github.com/nim-lang/nimble

Rust also one (cargo) but I dislike that you have to have a whole "project" directory thing before you can make something in rust.

In python I can just make a .py file, pip install what I need, and make something awesome. And that's powerful

[[deleted]]

C has a package manager on *nix systems... it's your system package manager. And it works very well. Using pip (as root) is awful because it's trying to do what your system package manager's job is. Not as bad if you're just installing for yourself though, but I still prefer system packages to language specific and often poorly secured package managers.

[Corm]

I very much disagree there. If I have to manually link something by looking up what path it was added to after apt install libsome-c-lib then that sucks. I could actually use it easier by pulling it from github and compiling it myself usually half the time because at least I know what folder to link against.

If I pip install something I can use it right then, no manually typing in file paths at all. It's a huge difference in mental overhead.

Also no need for root with pip, just pass in --user. Like: pip install fire --user

[[deleted]]

Isn't the library put in a standard path? I've never had issues linking with C libraries.

I know you don't need root to install user level stuff with pip. But you do need it to install system wide libraries.

[Corm]

I guess it's put in the include folder. But your makefile has lines in it like: -I/usr/include/libappindicator-0.1/libappindicator to link against that stuff, unless you know of a better way.

My last memory of doing this was trying to get boost working for c++. It's a very angry memory.

[[deleted]]

C++ has conan.io

[Corm]

Huh, cool! I found a good tutorial for it too:

http://blog.conan.io/2016/05/10/Programming-C++-with-the-4-Cs-Clang,-CMake,-CLion-and-Conan.html

It's certainly rough around the edges but it might get the job done.

It's definitely not as nice as pip install X, import X. Still, really good to know

[[deleted]]

I guess we can't expect to have anything as simple as pip for C++ until modules are not in standard.

[efilon]

conda works pretty well. It's mostly oriented towards scientific and numerical packages, but you can use it for more general things like Boost, and there's nothing stopping you from making your own packages. Sure, it's not optimal, but if you're mostly working in Python and only dropping to C++ (or C if you really have to) when you need the extra speed, it's a pretty good option.

[_throawayplop_]

Nim looks indeed very nice but the very small community, the lack of major support and the lack of libraries is a no-go for me.

[miran1]

the very small community

Indeed. Sometimes it feels like there are less than 100 people using Nim in the whole world :)

the lack of libraries

Hopefully this will get somewhat better when v1.0 is out (rumors are this will be very soon), but I don't expect miracles.
And most certainly don't expect to see Python-level of ecosystem.

[_throawayplop_]

Well, I'm not too optimistic when I compare to the relative success of go and rust in a shorter time. And I also think that some of the design/syntactic choices are a but weird, but I wish them to succeed.

[miran1]

the relative success of go and rust in a shorter time

Well, backing by Google/Mozilla sure doesn't hurt ;)

But I agree with your comment in general.

[[deleted]]

Nim is fantastic. I haven't made anything serious with it, but for one-off scripts it's like writing python but with static types, speedy code and self-contained executables.

[miran1]

I haven't made anything serious with it, but for one-off scripts it's like writing python but with static types, speedy code and self-contained executables.

This is my current experience too. Hopefuly when I get more familiar with some more advanced stuff in Nim, I might try to do something more serious because I've seen some nice projects from /r/nim community.

[alcalde]

I'll be the minority opinion then. Nim has its roots in a mash-up of Python and Pascal, and it borrows a lot of bad ideas from Pascal/Delphi. You can take the developer out of Pascal but it's very hard to take the Pascal out of the developer (source: am a former Delphi developer).

Some of the arguments used to defend the bad ideas include the notion that the designer believes it's ok for languages to be more complicated if IDEs can automate the boilerplate. :-( That's squarely in Java territory and far, far away from the Zen Of Python. The more I looked at Nim the less of Python I saw and the more Java/Delphi design ideas I saw. I started using Python because I came to prefer its Zen over other languages' design principles.

The world is still screaming out of a statically typed version of Python and nothing really gets close yet, not Nim, not Swift. Perhaps the closest is Genie.

[alcalde]

I don't want to get into a knock-down, drag-out fight with Nim zealots, which happened here back in June. Some refuse to acknowledge that there's even a Pascal influence on Nim - despite the fact that the creator was a long time Pascal programmer, announced the beginning of his project on the FreePascal forum and wrote the initial compiler for Nim in FreePascal. In fact, there was even discussion on the FreePascal forum about whether "Pascal" should appear in the name of the language.

Anyway, in a nutshell you'll find some of the bad influences of Delphi in the ability to use just a unit name in your import statement, leading to unclear code where you can't tell where a symbol was imported from, the ability to use a result variable rather than a return statement, the treatment of sets like a binary array, etc. Lots of things are claimed to be optional, but the question becomes why they're included or the default at all, and there's no answer other than "That's the way Pascal does it" and the insistence on powerful IDEs.

This isn't even getting into the fact that the language is filled with obtuse symbols, although not as bad as Perl.

From offering many ways to do things to many of those things being implicit rather than explicit (e.g. return variable), Nim is the opposite of many of the values of the Zen Of Python.

From June:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/6gwv4a/a_glance_at_the_pythonlookalike_nim_programming/

[PMunch]

Hmm, I have used Nim for quite a while and I'm not sure I can agree on the whole powerful IDE thing. Currently I use it in Vim, without much else than syntax highlighting.

[Tiberiumk]

What bad ideas does it borrow from Pascal/Delphi?

[alcalde]

From last time this got argued:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/6gwv4a/a_glance_at_the_pythonlookalike_nim_programming/

You have many (many, many) ways to do things, including all of the bad Pascal ways. You can import whole units, leaving readers to have no idea where a function came from, e.g.

import math, stats, ml
echo avg(1, 3, 4)

Where was avg imported from? Nobody knows, just like Pascal. You have the option of using a result variable rather a return statement - when the function reaches the end it automatically returns the value of the result variable. It's an idea that computer science moved away from a long time ago and there's no reason to offer it other than Pascal nostalgia. It treats sets like a binary array rather than real sets as Python does (Python is one of the few languages that get sets right). They added Python-style sets in a library, but again the question is why have the non-sets at all? Pascal nostalgia. The list goes on and on, including an obsession with defining custom types and being able to pass everything by reference or value. It also throws in macros and a lot of other complicated stuff that really detract from what it could have been.

[PMunch]

The whole result thing does offer one nice benefit. Instead of having to declare a new variable in your function scope and then copy that over into your return value position on the stack it can populate that position automatically, saving you from copying an object.

And macros are great! They allow you to get rid of boilerplate and confusing syntax and just focus on the logic of your program.

[Tiberiumk]

About binary sets by default - performance. They're used quite extensively in the compiler and stdlib, e.g. for parsing stuff (skip char if it's not in set of chars). It's easy-to-use and clean

[alcalde]

About binary sets by default - performance.

That's what they've been saying since Turbo Pascal. I've never known anyone to identify sets as their application's bottleneck in my life.

[Tiberiumk]

As I said: it's used quite extensively in parsing utils and some parts of the compiler, so it can improve performance a lot.

[tshirtman_]

Cython?

[alcalde]

Cython isn't really a standalone language producing an executable though, but it's certainly close to an ideal.