@scriptkiddy: > I personally do not like the idea of syntax "skins" at all. It is actually > one of the biggest issues I have with Javascript. When I'm looking at a > project written with es2015 vs TypeScript vs CoffeeScript I have to try and > imagine how it would look in regular old es5 just to get an understanding of > what the code is actually doing.
JavaScript was (and still is) a horrible language that is forced down client-side Web developers' throats. CoffeeScript / LiveScript / etc were an understandable opium for this pain, though it seems their popularity is has faded. Nim is in a completely different situation. No one is forced to use Nim. In fact, Nim faces an uphill battle against the already more popular competitors like C#, D, Rust, Go, etc. Someone who doesn't like Nim's syntax (and doesn't care about Nim's license freedom and other advantages) will simply not use Nim. "Customer lost." The modules they write in Rust or whatever will not benefit Nimland. But if there's a Nim syntax variant / "skin" that they like, then they're still on our side, and their modules are a part of our world.
