> Nim already has a very Python-like syntax. What is it that you suggest doing > differently?
There have been lots of proposals to push Nim's syntax closer to Python, at least for the simplest things, just [like Crystal have been very successful](https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/1246) by targeting Ruby. Ones that came from me include: implicit var, simpler type conversions, a [simple keyword that](https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/3061) behaves exactly like `import` does in Python, etc. My past proposals can also be considered in the context of having several [compiler front-ends / "syntax skins"](https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/2811): Nim, Pythonic Nim, Curly Brace Nim, etc. This will solve 90% of criticism that Nim gets for not being like $SomeonesFavoriteLang. (Hoping somebody has at least read and considered all the proposals I've posted here over the years...) > IIRC you are opposed to LLVM, and from my POV LLVM backed languages (Rust, > Swift, Julia, C++/Clang) have risen. This isn't accurate. I think I only brought up LLVM here in that Nim can gain the edge over LLVM-married languages by using the best C compiler for the job (which in some cases / on some platforms may be gcc, [pcc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_C_Compiler), tcc, etc - or a proprietary optimizing compiler). (I indeed am disappointed by LLVM's [underhanded](http://archive.fo/69wcw#selection-1521.0-1524.0) three-year-and-ongoing [license change](https://www.reddit.com/r/openbsd/comments/54xq2h/theo_de_raadt_on_llvm_license_change_proposal/) [drama](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12617881), since my _raison d 'être_ (at least in the programming realm) is to help create a viable [genuinely-free](http://www.stephankinsella.com/ip/) software stack that fits the license standards defined by the [Copyfree Initiative](http://copyfree.org) and [OpenBSD base](https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html). But this isn't a Nim-related issue. As long as Nim supports older versions / copyfree forks of Clang as well as pcc and other copyfree compilers - everything on Nim's end is a-OK.) > > 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. > > [...] 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. I acknowledge upfront that I'm biased on this issue, and that "license purists" / CoC culture rejects / etc are a minority. But Nim's total market share is far smaller, probably like 0.01% or 0.001%. The number of people who like the freedom points I'm making is several orders of magnitude greater. There aren't many things Nim can be Number One Best at, but it is on this issue. So **this is a valid niche for Nim to embrace**! As I posted [in detail](http://archive.fo/YShGX) previously, Nim ranks #1 in percentage of the nimble ecosystem having a copyfree license, in addition to all-copyfree tooling, lack of an evil corporate sugar-daddy, lack of a [SJW witch-hunt culture](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918), and perfect portability to all copyfree OSes (BSDs, Haiku, MINIX, etc). Recommended reading: [Theo de Raadt's rejection of "safe languages"](https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/7hgstc/theo_de_raadt_on_integrating_safe_languages_like/). I think Nim should position itself (technically, legally, and culturally) as the #1 most likely candidate for a project like OpenBSD (and those with similar philosophy) to embrace.
