Nim appears to be quite similar to Haxe, though Haxe compiles to numerous additional targets. Aside from that, and the syntax, what are the main differences between Nim and Haxe?
On the other had Nim only transpiles to C, so the language is simpler and easier to reason about performance. (And it probably has faster compile times). It is also explicitly designed to interop with C, so you can easily use all those C libraries in the wild...
But I still have some hope on Haxe, because the main developer is working on Hashlink, which can run Haxe code on a virtual machine but can also transpile it to C for production builds... It seems a more simple and “focused” Haxe target that doesn’t have all the warts of hxcpp...
I don't understand --- I would think it's quite the opposite. Implementing too many unique target-language -specific features in Haxe would mean lots more compilation acrobatics to make those features work across every target language, correct?
> the main developer is working on Hashlink, which can run Haxe code on a virtual machine but can also transpile it to C for production builds
Yes, very excited about HashLink!
Nim also compiles to javascript too, right?