Nim Conf 2026 (Online, Sat June 20)
48 points
6 hours ago
| 5 comments
| conf.nim-lang.org
| HN
pietroppeter
6 hours ago
[-]
Two tracks this year (a first).

As usual, videos are prerecorded and released as YouTube Premiere.

Track 1: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHI4D93Ts8_k&si=06qsQgYUd...

Track 2: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHUPmLYoCMoY&si=iMwL7UeIO...

reply
pietroppeter
3 hours ago
[-]
personal highlight I looked forward to:

- Araq's update on Nimony and Nim 3 (and NIF, which is so cool)

- Constantin's love letter to Nim (long overdue and I expect to connect strongly with this one)

- Treeform talking about Nim and AI (always very clean and inspiring presentations)

- Capocasa's testimony about building a (economic) coding agent in Nim

- Gianmarco talking about Nim for embedded

- Peter telling the story on how he introduces Nim to his company's new hires

I am pretty sure the general quality will be good and there will be hidden pearls (last year pearl for me was the one about putting Nim on e-ink screens all over the house)

(you won't find name of authors in the conf page but you will find them in the youtube playlists)

reply
k__
48 minutes ago
[-]
Did Nim 3 go all-in on compile time memory management?
reply
kombine
2 hours ago
[-]
It's a bit sad, but do most even care about elegant and efficient code these days in the age of coding agents?
reply
shevy-java
2 hours ago
[-]
Coding agents do not affect me at all, meaning, I don't care about them. I think this is also the case for some other developers.

Having said that, though, this assumes that xyz is great - or was great already - before coding agents. The team around Nim is great, and nim is not inelegant, but you kind of need to want to like types, and I found that to be the biggest obstacle for entry (also for crystal, by the way; the "just ruby, but with types" is IMO an incorrect description - just simulating syntax does not mean you are having the same language. This is even more so not the case with elixir. Some people think ruby is solely or primarily ruby because of the syntax. This is wrong; it is the philosophy that is the main difference between e. g. ruby and crystal or ruby and elixir, not the syntax; syntax comes after the philosophy and the philosophy is very different, though admittedly in crystal it is closer to ruby's philosophy than elixir's philosophy is to ruby's philosophy). I kind of like having to not want to care about types at all. This is also why I think those who want to slap on types on ruby and python are wrong. They use their own biased mindset to project from this point on, how languages without types are useless. And you can not convince them otherwise - they have set up their brain to function only that way already, which is interesting (and explains why they are so desperately trying to add types to e. g. ruby and python, as an example).

reply
theSherwood
2 hours ago
[-]
FYI, there appear to be several typos where occurrences of "h" seem to have been replaced with "d", such as in "tde".
reply
DeathArrow
4 hours ago
[-]
It's nice seeing Nim has some activity.
reply