> people will not invest in this language, since they know they are buying > something that is somehow on the verge of obsolescence. For how long will GC > be available when the new runtime is deemed to be stable?
I think Nim stands to gain more people than it will lose if the newruntime experiment is a success. Mainly from the C++/Rust crowd. This crowd _really_ loves determinism (I include myself in this crowd). It's a big selling point. Araq has already addressed the point that a "correctness proof" is not always sufficient for industrial implementation. I personally think a real world implementation and experimentation is an important and necessary part of computer science research. I think that Nim is still small enough that the experiment is viable without alienating people too much. > Well, sort of. Things always evolve, but work on Scala 3 started when Scala > was version 2.11, not when it was 2.0RC. If that was the case, people would > have skipped the Scala 2 release line altogether You bring up a very good point about Scala, and LTS promises. The core team has been very adamant about making 1.0 extremely stable and well supported for a long time, including working on the experimental features in a thoughtful and backwards compatible way. I think this is a marketing issue. The Nim team needs to make sure that the LTS guarantees are strongly codified and that those guarantees are highly visible on the website and github. I think the release notes of 0.20 did a pretty good job, but maybe we need something even stronger?
