refaqtor
|
6 years ago
|
on: Nim: Scripting Ease in a Compiled Language
Well, if you're talking GUI stuff, nothing in Nim compares to Qt. But, I did routinely use Qt for console, server, and headless embedded stuff. The Qt environment compensated for lots of C++ shortcomings up to recently. I think I've seen a Nim linkage to QML (Qt's newer Javascript UI markup language). But, I've never been all that keen on it. Depends what you need in a GUI. QML worked well for me on android/ios apps. I guess I'm just old school when it comes to desktop apps, and I can bang out a Qt gui app in a hurry for the desktop. A few times, in D, I'd written all of the logic for the application in D as a console app with a command handler that worked on stdin that would generate the same Qt data model on stdout that a Qt GUI app would use to populate its model-bound tables and whatnot. Worked surprisingly well.
But, to end this treatise on the state of nim gui stuff... I've had some fun with nimx, but keep trying the more native stuff. give 'em a try.
refaqtor
|
6 years ago
|
on: Nim: Scripting Ease in a Compiled Language
I've quit using Python, unless forced, because I've gotten too many folders of files that "work on my(the original developer's) machine," but fail on mine because I didn't find or follow a README that said "just" install all the same dependencies and versions.
refaqtor
|
6 years ago
|
on: Nim: Scripting Ease in a Compiled Language
Nim is great for knocking out commandline apps, I recommend "cligen" for quick and clean options, or "docopt" for friendlier cli options. They feel "scripty" when you can begin with a couple lines and grow it up from there.
I found it the easiest to learn. And difficulties getting my other favorite, D, on embedded and Haiku and OS/2 (which also have poor javascript support) was my prompt to give it a try. I found cross-compiling easy. But just as easy was having Nim installed on all my platforms.
refaqtor
|
6 years ago
|
on: Nim: Scripting Ease in a Compiled Language
I don't have vague memories. I use it everyday on production code on server and embedded. I find it stable, solid, dependable.
refaqtor
|
6 years ago
|
on: Nim: Scripting Ease in a Compiled Language
"Nimrod" experience is quite outdated. There have been great improvements in documentation in the last year.
refaqtor
|
6 years ago
|
on: Nim: Scripting Ease in a Compiled Language
cross-compiling to ARM embedded was surprisingly simple
refaqtor
|
6 years ago
|
on: Nim: Scripting Ease in a Compiled Language
ditto! docker and kubernetes are solutions to problems that shouldn't be there in the first place!
refaqtor
|
6 years ago
|
on: Nim: Scripting Ease in a Compiled Language
I'm using Nim in production since .18 with zero issues. I spent many years in Qt/C++ and was reasonably quick, but not as quick as I was with D. But then, in an evening, from a cold start, using nothing more than the two Nim Tutorial pages that I happened to have cached in my browser (I was away from a network connection) I was able to redesign and reimplement the bulk of my application in Nim that had taken me one week in D and two in C++. Qt/C++ was great to go from desktop to server to android/iphone. Qt is a bit of a burden on embedded, and D didn't cross-compile easily as Nim. I like banging out standalone executables starting from a two line "script" and evolving up to a complex server.
I like Python, but find datatype or whitespace issues that crop up only in runtime intolerable. Compiled Nim won't allow that in the first place - and is very helpful with error messages. I'm also infuriated by getting a "cross-platform" Python script that won't run on my machine because I haven't configured and installed all the dependencies that were on the original developer's machine!
Anyway, I'd say pick a small app and have a go. After that, you won't want to waste the mental capacity to use anything else.
For knocking out commandline apps, I recommend "cligen" for quick and clean options, or "docopt" for friendlier cli options.