> I'll now consider NimC... We simply need better education... C is not a portable assembler, the machine code you get out of a C compiler, while somewhat predictable, isn't more predictable than e.g. Ocaml's machine code -- it's less predictable because C has the better optimizers. Furthermore assembler allows for control flow that C doesn't; an assembler's syntax is more regular and thus easier than C's, an assembler allows easy access to overflow flags, an assembler doesn't conflate pointers and arrays, and finally an assembly language doesn't have very subtle aliasing restrictions and undefined behaviors.
If you want to get Nim into the curriculums, write a book/good documentation about Nim, spread the word, help us to define what Nim's type system actually is... Don't create a trojan horse named NimC, there simply is no merit in C -- it is not "simple". When you want simple, pick Oberon or Scheme. Yes, C was more useful than Pascal in 1972 and Unix was written in it. So what. > Nim is a very young and still fragile language. Yes, so please help us. Directly, not by writing toy compilers for even less fleshed out languages.
