> Look at the Go language manual for comparison[1]. Go is simple (some would argue, simplistic) and there's a lot there too. Programming languages are complex beasts. "Number of things in the sidebar of the manual" is a poor way to judge a programming language.
I don't think you're being fair to me here! Look at the _content_ of the sidebar of https://nim-lang.org/docs/manual.html and you will see the massive variety of language features listed there for the Nim language.
I am certainly not talking about the raw _length_ or _number_ of items in any list which is definitely a crude and silly measurement. Here your link to Golang's specification is missing my point.
> Look at the Go language manual for comparison[1]. Go is simple (some would argue, simplistic) and there's a lot there too. Programming languages are complex beasts. "Number of things in the sidebar of the manual" is a poor way to judge a programming language.
I don't think you're being fair to me here! Look at the _content_ of the sidebar of https://nim-lang.org/docs/manual.html and you will see the massive variety of language features listed there for the Nim language.
I am certainly not talking about the raw _length_ or _number_ of items in any list which is definitely a crude and silly measurement. Here your link to Golang's specification is missing my point.