I did look briefly at Nim and while it looks like a nice language in its own right, it is quite different from the language that I envision. I dream of a more pure functional language (e.g. uses map instead of for-loops etc.), for starters.
The problem with functional language constructs like map is that they are less intuitive/familiar for beginners. I have found it easier to teach loops than map/filter/reduce. A solution could be that the language suggest this to the developer and offer automatic refactoring of the for-loop, something like: "It might better to use the map function instead -> refactor".
yeah, map has a problematic name for beginners. It should have been called something like apply. Because you "apply" an operation to some thing. "Mapping" a set of things to another set of things (by way of a function) is too much derived from abstract mathematics to be beginner friendly (as is much of FP lingo, sadly).
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
It looks a lot like Nim.
I did look briefly at Nim and while it looks like a nice language in its own right, it is quite different from the language that I envision. I dream of a more pure functional language (e.g. uses
mapinstead offor-loops etc.), for starters.The problem with functional language constructs like
mapis that they are less intuitive/familiar for beginners. I have found it easier to teach loops thanmap/filter/reduce. A solution could be that the language suggest this to the developer and offer automatic refactoring of the for-loop, something like: "It might better to use themapfunction instead -> refactor".yeah,
maphas a problematic name for beginners. It should have been called something likeapply. Because you "apply" an operation to some thing. "Mapping" a set of things to another set of things (by way of a function) is too much derived from abstract mathematics to be beginner friendly (as is much of FP lingo, sadly).