> So, laser-like focus on getting IC shipping is the 1.8 plan? As asked, any > rough idea as to a ship date?
There is an ongoing debate about whether we'll have a 1.8 or if we go for 2.0 directly. A stable IC could also be backported to the 1.6.x line. > Concepts Concepts are stuck in the design phase as I have no idea of how to infer `static` values. > method and Nim's take on OO in general We should map methods to C++'s virtual function tables. We should implement <https://github.com/nim-lang/RFCs/issues/380> for our "take on OO". Unfortunately, #380 is harder to implement than I expected it to be. :-) > CPS, async, the threading libraries There is now <https://github.com/nim-lang/threading> providing shared pointers and light-weight channels. I hope for a better `createThread` API, see also <https://github.com/nim-lang/RFCs/issues/401> `async` is mature but doesn't see much development, if and when CPS can succeed it is unclear to me, I haven't been following its progress. IMO neither should be part of 2.0, 2.0 should trim what has been proven to be done better as external packages.
