[nepeckman]

Not OP, but a big Nim fan. I think Nim has made a mistake by marketing itself as Python inspired. I know why it does so; Python is a very successful language and as a niche language, Nim wants to associate itself with an established one. But in my experience, Nim has a very small overlap with Python. It is whitespace significant, prefers short words to symbols for operators, and has a robust stdlib. But if you look at the actual language semantics, or even the keywords, Nim is not really related to Python. I'd go as far as saying Nim is more similar to a Lisp than it is Pythonic (which works fine for me, as I prefer Lisp to Python).

All of this to say, the OPs language seems much more Pythonic. The key words, the built in functions, the class system, all seems designed to match Python as closely as possible.

[elcritch]

It took me a couple of weeks to realize Nim’s semantics are really different. Despite that Nim feels like an alternate reality of Python 2 -> 3 that went more lispy and a bit Pascal-ish. It gives me the old Python 2.7 vibe. Though I’d still prefer ‘def’ to ‘proc’ but that’s pretty minor to me.

It’s interesting to see how well the typed Python syntax maps to a static implementation of Python. The speed should probably be a lot faster than CPythin too for many cases.

[sullyj3]

The really nice thing about proc is that emphasizes that they are in fact procedures, rather than mathematical functions - a distinction that becomes more relevant as FP gains mindshare.