Well, considering that the video basically shows nim as an underdeveloped,
overbugged ad-hoc C spitter that you have to manually hack around to get at
least somewhat decent experience, it is no wonder the talk was rejected. I
don't know, maybe I have different use cases, but the only time I had to deal
with any of the problems you have described. Basically filled with dubious
claims like "the standard library is good when it works", backed up with a
singular examples. Some stdlib modules are certainly lacking, but I don't think
there is a reason for such broad generalization.
Also, "an honest look at how easy it is to criticism other people's work" \- I
would say it is not particularly easy, at least if you are trying to provide
actually criticism and not just semi-random claims based on either edge cases
or personal misunderstanding (E.g. typeclasses - I still don't understand why
people are so hung up on the `Type | Type` syntax which absolutely _must_ mean
sum types or whatever).
.
├── b
│ └── c
│ ├── q
│ └── q.nim
└── z.nim
cat b/c/q.nim
import ../../z.nim
nim r b/c/q.nim
123
Run
\- modules work fine
