News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Quick Comparison of Nim vs. Rust by vbit on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @01:47AM (#8884728)
I believe you can turn off the GC for Nim. Then you're just limited to libraries that don't rely on the GC, and fully manual memory management.
Re:A Quick Comparison of Nim vs. Rust by steventhedev on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @03:01AM (#8884900)
This is more of an option than you might think. Nim plugs in to C libraries much easier than you would expect from an FFI. That means even if the stdlib depends on the GC heavily, you can eschew it for the C stdlib.

For example:

    proc printf(formatstr: cstring) {.header: "<stdio.h>", importc: "printf", varargs.}
I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of higher level language features rather than performance (which is generally a result of data structure choices, etc). Stuff like package managers, concurrency primitives, cross compiler support, memory management, and general syntax.
Re:A Quick Comparison of Nim vs. Rust by skrebbel on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @03:22AM (#8884960)
Wow, that's a pretty cool insight. Basically that means you could use "Nim without GC" as "a better C". I can see very few downsides. You could probably start using it in existing C projects much like you could start adding .scala files to an existing Java project.
Re:A Quick Comparison of Nim vs. Rust by girvo on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @06:24AM (#8885590)
As an example, that's exactly what I'm doing with my SDL game experiments; I'm using Nim as a "better C", effectively. It works rather brilliantly.
Re:A Quick Comparison of Nim vs. Rust by pcwalton on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @10:04AM (#8886621)
That isn't Rust's semantics though (as specified in the parent post): Rust's semantics are about ensuring safe manual memory management.