> Nim can inherit these unsafe behaviors of C?
Not at all. You could apply the same reasoning for assembly: just because you can write insecure assembly it does not mean that all assembly generated by compiler is using vulnerable coding patterns.
That is an implementation detail, nothing prevents a future release of Nim compiler to directly generate machine code.
Fascinating. When will they do it? I would prefer it generate direct machine code instead.
> I would prefer it generate direct machine code instead.
Why? C has been the best choice for Nim so far.
Compiling with Nim+GCC is much faster than Rust, it generates applications with comparable performance, and it supports way more architectures.
So, does it mean, that Nim can inherit these unsafe behaviors of C? Or did the Nim language creators safely avoid the pitfalls of C?
Whereas a language like Zig and Rust, compiles its code down to LLVM.