That basically blames US consumers for Chinese policy and environmental practices - how is a US consumer going to force China to stop using coal powerplants?

The choice/substitution argument doesn’t work when there are no practical alternatives. This is why climate change and pollution are not individual choices, but a global imperative. Anything short of global coordinated action to mitigate won’t work (and won’t be enough). What individuals can do is put pressure on their officials and buy sensibly when choice is there.

> That basically blames US consumers for Chinese policy

Not at all, this is not personal consumer's choice. Consumers can only make efforts to fight consumerism and push for political change.

Do you have a reference to a list which does that calculation?

All the other states at the to of that carbon per capita list also seem like they're highly dependent on imports, possibly more than the US, so I'd expect that many of the factors you describe also apply to them. The gulf states also have to get their phones from abroad.

Compared to Go it really feels way closer to Python.

I never had this issue: do not mix different stiles across the same project.

Instead, you can import and use libraries that use a different stile without breaking your convention.

At the time no companies were heavily marketing FOSS projects. Also, today large companies have a fanbase.

Nim is getting very close to Rust in terms of safety (but without the verbose ownership management)

https://nim-lang.org/blog/2020/10/15/introduction-to-arc-orc...

https://nim-lang.org/blog/2020/12/08/introducing-orc.html

Memory safety with GC is easy. Rust is novel because it offers memory safety without GC. Your links mention GC.

Can Rust deal with linked lists as well? Nim has a cycle collector based on the trial deletion algorithm https://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-bacon/... It's different than the usual GC algorithms.

Nim compiles to C and then runs GCC (not LLVM) to compile the binary. Overall, it's much faster than Go and Rust.

I get that Nim can be faster than Go but I don't see how it can be faster than Rust, could you please elaborate as to why?

They probably mean the compilation is much faster than Rust.

I was referring to compilation time... given the question.

Is transpiled C readable?

It is. It's just not very pleasant to read due to the autogenerated variable names.

If you disable all runtime checks, like integer overflows, range checks, etc..., stack traces and debug information (-d:danger) it's readable yes.

You described Nim: https://nim-lang.org

In all non-trivial codebases you have to learn how other people implemented something. It can be easy or take time depending on the how well it's written.

Macros are not different than functions: one can create readable or crazy spaghetti code in any language.

If you find a codebase full of unreadable macros it's not different than any other type of bad code: stay away from it or simplify it.

Personally, I'm yet to find a macro that makes the code less readable or more difficult to understand.

...because nowadays the world of software is marketing driven. People often ask me what big company is behind Nim even before asking about its design and features.

> I still don't understand though why Nim is not as popular as Go

Google's marketing budget.