[matthiaswh]

Most of the perceived "fiddly" parts of Nim are due to it being statically typed and compiled, in my experience.

Nim intentionally gives you very spartan objects. It is by no means an OOP-first or even an OOP-heavy language. The object type is little more than a storage container for named values, and should be treated as such. There is no magic like what you get with Python objects.

I've said it before, but the frequently thrown around, "it's just like Python but typed and compiled" has probably been a net negative for the language. It is syntatically similar, but once you get beyond those initial appearances it is a very, very different beast. So if you try to write Pythonesque Nim, you're not going to have a good time with it. It's no different than trying to write JavaScript like Python - they're just different languages that don't work the same way.

The macro chapter in Nim by Example is a good tutorial for writing a macro, but I don't know that it's a big improvement. For the most part, it just allows you to remove the `self: ObjectType` from methods that act on an object. I guess that's okay? But even Python makes you include the `self` in class methods.