5 ms·
I would have used Nim for just about everything, had there been: 1. Support for cyclic imports 2. Official WASM support. I know nlvm exists. But those are two
by himujjal 4y ago
I would have used Nim for just about everything, had there been:
1. Support for cyclic imports
2. Official WASM support. I know nlvm exists. But those are two separate runtimes to be managed for long time.
- sekao 4y agoI believe cyclic imports are coming. And Nim does supports wasm...you can target it with `--cpu:wasm32`. You most likely want to pair that with emscripten as in https://github.com/treeform/nim_emscripten_tutorial https://github.com/treeform/nim_emscripten_tutorial
- himujjal 4y agoYeah. checked out wasm part. But man. I am not going to go into Nim without cyclic imports. I was writing a compiler I remember where I hit the 5k LOC mark in Nim. And then the errors and stuff. It was a terrible experience putting all the types into one file, the functions into others etc etc. The DevExp is bad that way. Other than that, I don't see much issues with Nim to be fair. Its quite a good language that ticks all boxes