@juancarlospaco Nim should try, but I don't agree with the "typescript sucks" thing. Typescript's system/features are a much bigger inovation than coffeescript's syntax sugar(coffeescript was cool tho!). You can't just strap on a haskell-like type system on vanilla JavaScript and expect it to be usable, a lot of the typescript decisions are smart and make sense.
> I have specifically worked on different features/aspects of Nim to make the > experience closer to the typescript one and underestimating them is not wise: > other languages as elm and purescript might have stronger type > systems(stronger than Nim too), but they are worse in e.g. interop. The > bigger problem is: most popular libs have typescript/flow types, but not > elm/purescript/other typings, so typescript's type system remains most useful. This actually works in Nim's favour: as it's easier to automap those typings to Nim types and reuse a lot of this effort.
