<story><title>What makes Nim practical?</title><url>http://hookrace.net/blog/what-makes-nim-practical/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>BoppreH</author><text>I read the Nim manual a while ago (&lt;a href=&quot;http://nim-lang.org/manual.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nim-lang.org&amp;#x2F;manual.html&lt;/a&gt;), back when it was Nimrod.&lt;p&gt;As a Python user, I loved it. Every single problem I had with Python, Nim seemed to have solved elegantly. Performance, distribution, typing... Everything looked perfect, and none of the Python expressiveness seemed to have been sacrificed.&lt;p&gt;But it was transpiled to C, and the abstraction was leaky. Every once in a while the manual would mention that certain structures were not supported, and it was clear C was the culprit. I think the most glaring example were nested functions, or something similar.&lt;p&gt;I thought to myself &amp;quot;this will bite me in the ass sooner or later&amp;quot; and gave up. Maybe it&amp;#x27;s time to try again. If they plugged the abstraction holes, this will be a killer language, with applications everywhere.</text></comment>
<story><title>What makes Nim practical?</title><url>http://hookrace.net/blog/what-makes-nim-practical/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>JimmyM</author><text>Great post. I thought I&amp;#x27;d comment just to say about the relative URL ..&amp;#x2F;what-is-special-about-nim not working as intended from the homepage and the link to &lt;a href=&quot;http://nim-lang/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nim-lang&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt; which should presumably be &lt;a href=&quot;http://nim-lang.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nim-lang.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Seems a shame to make such a pedantic and insubstantial comment on such an interesting article about a language I&amp;#x27;d not come across, but thought the author might like to know.</text></comment>