[copx]

And how do you do "memory management well"? Like Rust? You pay a high price in complexity and inflexibility for that juicy GC-less yet safe memory management.

Ref counting is not superior or inferior to explicit, restrictive ownership semantics. Those are simply different trade-offs.

Nim might be strictly inferior for writing a heavily multi-threaded web browser because of its memory management approach but that does not mean the approach is generally inferior.

Seems to me that Nim aims to be a "casual", rapid development / friendly (Python-like) language. Ownership semantics like in Rust do not fit there.

[pcwalton]

I'm personally a fan of regular old Java/C#-like concurrent garbage collection for most "scripting" languages (perhaps surprisingly, given my work on Rust). It's a lot of work to get there, but I think there's no substitute for doing the work—apps really end up needing the flexibility of shared memory. Shortcuts that seem simple like DRC end up tending to run into walls in practice, which is something that the other languages discovered—history keeps pointing to the HotSpot-style garbage collector as the one that systems that need to offer a simple, general-purpose garbage-collected programming model migrate to.

For different use cases Rust-style ownership semantics (when the performance of GC and runtime interoperability become an issue), or Azul-style pauseless GC (when you're willing to trade throughput for latency), or shared-nothing architectures (when you need them for legacy reasons like JavaScript, or want a simple programming model like Erlang) can work great.

[tatterdemalion]

"apps really end up needing the flexibility of shared memory"

Why? Just performance or is there a design reason also?

[jibalt]

"You pay a high price in complexity and inflexibility for that juicy GC-less yet safe memory management."

It's a price that a lot of people are willing to pay, because of how badly they want what they're paying for.

Nim and Rust have different goals, different tradeoffs, and overlapping target audiences. Having both is good. Making them fight is bad.