I think that changing Nim to get more users is exactly what should not be done.
A language should not be adapted to suit the opinion of a majority of potential
users. Rather users have to learn other ways to work.
For me, many of those who definitively rejected Nim for its case insensivity
will have, anyway, rejected Nim for other reasons: the fact that it is not
object oriented, its GC, the exceptions, its syntax, usage of keywords rather
than symbols ("and" rather than "&"), etc.
And I don’t buy the idea that there are lot of users who would prefer case
insensitivity. Those who are satisfied with the current situation do not say
anything. They use Nim, that’s all. It’s easier to find people who complain
than people who agree.
Look at other languages. Go, for instance, has chosen to use return codes
rather than exceptions. This is an important choice, much more important than
case sensitivity/insensitivity. A lot of people have complained. It was their
right, but Go designers have not changed anything. They have lost potential
users, me for instance, but have considered that a language should follow a
philosophy. That’s fine an I respect this.
Python is another example. When it was a young language, its syntactic
significant indentation has been a blocking point for a lot of users. At this
moment, Guido van Rossum could have get a lot of users by changing this. He
don’t. Slowly, the language has received more and more attention, until even
the most reluctant have finally learned it. For me, Python is the exact example
of what should be done: no concessions for major points. Whether case
sensitivity/insensitivity is a major point is somewhat disputable though.
