> Rust is safer and faster than Nim, How do you know that it's faster? There are quite a lot of benchmarks where Nim can beat Rust.
> So a Rust libraries is better than a Nim library (safer,faster,more actively > maintened,..) Again not true - the language being "safer" doesn't mean that the library is also safer or that the library is faster or more actively maintained. Despites that, why would we need Nim anyway if we were to just use Rust libraries for everything? > Write a Rust wrapper should be much easier than develop a pure Nim library Writing a Nim wrapper of a C library is even easier, and C "ecosystem" is much bigger than Rust's :)
