> I'm hearing you but Nim is an imperative core plus a macro system. We never > claimed anything else > \-- if I wanted Haskell, I know where to find it.
Indeed, going 'full functional' would be terrible, and overloading is great. I'd like Nim to be a viable replacement for C++ and for that I think the current direction is _just right_. That said, one thing I wish Nim would take from ML/Haskell/Rust is the algebraic data types. I can't say I find Nim's tagged variants to be an improvement on those. Maybe in Nim 2.0?
