[dkarl]

I'd love to replace Python with something simple, expressive, and strongly typed that compiles to native code. I have a habit of building little CLI tools as conveniences for working with internal APIs, and you wouldn't think you could tell a performance difference between Go and Python for something like that, but you can. After a year or so of writing these tools in Go, I went back to Python because the LOC difference is stark, but every time I run one of them I wish it was written in Go.

(OCaml is probably what I'm looking for, but I'm having a hard time getting motivated to tackle it, because I dread dealing with the tooling and dependency management of a 20th century language from academia.)

[rangerelf]

Have you tried Nim? Strong and static typed, versatile, compiles down to native code vía C, interops with C trivially, has macros and stuff to twist your brain if you're into that, and is trivially easy to get into.

https://nim-lang.org

[dkarl]

That looks very interesting. The code samples look like very simple OO/imperative style code like Python. At first glance it's weird to me how much common functionality relies on macros, but it seems like that's an intentional part of the language design that users don't mind? I might give it a try.

[eru]

Yes, Go can hardly be called statically typed, when they use the empty interface everywhere.

Yes, OCaml would be a decent language to look into. Or perhaps even OxCaml. The folks over at Jane Street have put a lot of effort into tooling recently.

[jcgl]

> Yes, Go can hardly be called statically typed, when they use the empty interface everywhere.

How often are you using any/interface {}? Yes, sometimes it's the correct solution to a problem, but it's really not that common in my experience. Certainly not common in ways that actually make life hard.

Also, since generics, I've been able to cut down my use of the empty interface even further.

[eru]

Yes, generics have cut down on the times you need to use the empty interface.

[archargelod]

You can replace Python with Nim. It checks literally all your marks (expressive, fast, compiled, strong-typing). It's as concise as Python, and IMO, Nim syntax is even more flexible.

https://nim-lang.org

[kevin_thibedeau]

And compilation is fast enough that you can run it as a script with shebang methods.

[Hasnep]

I bounced off OCaml a few years ago because of the state of the tooling, despite it being almost exactly the language I was looking for. I'm really happy with Gleam now, and recommended it over OCaml for most use cases.

[IshKebab]

Can you use Gleam for ad-hoc scripting? In my mind that means two requirements that most languages fail at.

1. You can import by relative file path. (Python can't.)

2. You can specify third party dependencies in a single file script and have that work properly with IDEs.

Deno is the best option I've found that has both of those and is statically typed.

I'm hoping Rust will eventually too but it's going to be at least a year or two.

[dkarl]

I always assumed a runtime specialized for highly concurrent, fault-tolerant, long-running processes would have a noticeable startup penalty, which is one of the things that bothers me about Python. Is that something you notice with Gleam?

[antsinmypants]

I tried out Gleam for Advent of Code this year. There was a significant difference in startup times, about 13 ms for Python and 120 ms for Gleam.

If you want something with minimal startup times then you need a language that complies to native binaries like Zig, Rust or OCaml.

[ZenoArrow]

Did you consider using F#? The language is very similar to OCaml, but it has the added benefit of good tooling and a large package ecosystem (can use any .NET package).

[Hasnep]

I've heard a lot of good things about F#, but I've also heard that C# has taken all the best features from F# and now development has slowed down. I don't know how true that is. It's also just some irrational anti Microsoft bias, even though I know .NET runs fine on Linux now, the idea still felt weird to me. I suspect if I'd actually tried F# I would have stuck with it.

I have looked at the Fable compiler for F# which lets you compile F# to Rust which is very cool!

[yawaramin]

https://dev.to/yawaramin/practical-ocaml-314j

[ufmace]

Rust might be worth a look. It gets much closer to the line count and convenience of the dynamic languages like Python than Go, plus a somewhat better type system. Also gets a fully modern tooling and dependency management system. And native code of course.

[fiyec30375]

I suppose you could try typescript which can compile to a single binary using node or bun. Both bun and node do type stripping of ts types, and can compile a cli to a single file executable. This is what anthropic does for Claude code.

[loic-sharma]

You might want to try Dart. It is simple, has great tooling, and compiles to native code.

Disclaimer: I work on Flutter at Google.

[wiseowise]

Modern Java with Graalvm.