> I wonder if that makes my above point of "Appeal to Python Fans" worthy of a
> second look.
Nim already has a very Python-like syntax. What is it that you suggest doing
differently?
> My points about appealing to freedom zealots like myself ("license purists",
> refugees from the > politics of projects like Rust, etc) have also only
> become more relevant.
Evidence? IIRC you are opposed to LLVM, and from my POV LLVM backed languages
(Rust, Swift, Julia, C++/Clang) have risen.
I see no evidence at all of a significant movement of "license purists" who
affect my industrial language/tool choices. There are multiple well known
licenses and company lawyers give guidance on how to deal with them. You seem
to be a fanatic, which is fine, but your politics aren't widely shared and your
views on software appear colored by your politics.
> My prediction of Nim entering the Top 100 by the end of 2018 has fallen
> short... I think > lack of focus and other things I've previously written
> about are the most plausible reasons why...
Here perhaps, we agree. IMO Nim should drop some features (e.g., **method** ),
fix broken stuff that was documented but not ready (concept, static[T], regions
if they're still there?), and ship a version 1.0. Not, for example, try to
develop tooling to compile to JS, amongst other things. Nim can't take on
Typescript, and shouldn't try.
An acquaintance once described the Nim development model as being by ADD*
addled teenagers. I was annoyed at the time, but I've come to see his point.
Concepts, regions, all kinds of good ideas that never get finished. Watching
NIm, like watching D, is an exercise in frustration. There _is_ room for new
system level programming languages, but Nim appears determined to drop the ball.
* ADD = attention deficit disorder
