@Jehan > The context here is people transitioning from other languages.
I believe I understand your point, I just don't agree with your conclusion. Technical issues don't seem to be all that important for adoption outside of the small initial group of early adopters, where it's very important. Lack of inheritance (and generics!) in Go was bemoaned by many, yet I'd say in terms of adoption it's been a success. JS adopting classes came **after** it's success, and didn't drive its success at all. Clojure has never been "classically" OO at all. OCaml, which I believe you are familiar with, has a very different sort of object system, and it's not widely used at all in the OCaml community; I bet they could drop the O and few users would care. I didn't mention OCaml before because it's hardly a success in terms of adoption. I agree with you that it is annoying that vtrefs are not yet implemented, so we can't even try them yet with our OO programs. But that goes to the real hindrance to Nim adoption, the perception that it's an unfinished hobby language, not worthy of consideration for "real work". That perception affects all non-mainstream languages. Few want to become expert Dylan programmers, only to see it die on the vine. Nim has been "about to get some 1.0 release" for a few years now. Anyone who reads that starts thinking "It's the language of the future, always has been, always will be". @canyonblue77 and @Libman There are a **huge** number of potential users amongst data scientists and bioinformaticians for whom Nim's Python-like syntax is an enormous draw, so much so that I just use "looks/reads like Python, compiles to fast C code" as my Nim line, and they're very interested. Ruby is not that popular in data science, so people there don't care about a language that looks like Ruby.
