[kibwen]

Aside from having whitespace-sensitive syntax, Nim isn't Python-esque at all. Nim very much encourages TIMTOWTDI over Python's there-should-be-preferably-one-way-to-do-it. Nim also has extremely flexible syntax where Python is rigid. See Nim's pervasive use of metaprogramming via macros, or its inclusion of user-defined symbolic operators (as per Haskell and Scala), or the fact that it considers `foo` and `Foo` and `FOO` and `f_O__o` to be equivalent identifiers, or its inclusion of UFCS.

Nim is a neat language, but comparisons to Python solely because it has semantic indentation are completely shallow (especially so when you consider that Guido doesn't even think that whitespace sensitivity is an important feature).

[beagle3]

I agree that idiomatic Nim (if there is such a thing) is very different than idiomatic Python.

What I meant (and did not express clearly) is that you can write mostly pythonesque code in Nim, and it will perform as well as Go. You don't have to modify the syntax, use macros, define symbolic operators, operational transforms, etc any more than you have to use metaclasses in Python.

At it's core, if you write "typed python" code in Nim, it will work, be readable, and perform well.