DevelopmentProgramming Language

What are the best systems programming languages?

24
Options 
Considered
0
User 
Recs.
Last 
Updated

Nim vs Rust vs C

 vs Go (Programming Language) vs V vs Ada vs Zig vs D vs C++ vs Object Pascal vs OCaml vs Common Lisp vs Ark vs Forth vs Red/System vs ATS vs Vala vs ParaSail vs Myrddin vs Pony vs Modula-3 vs Objective-C vs PL/I vs Hume vs Idris vs MicroPython vs English Language vs Java vs TypeScript vs Crystal vs Elixir vs Dart vs C# vs PureBasic vs Swift vs Mathematics vs Python vs C++20 STL Cookbook vs Go vs Golang.org vs Perl vs PicoLisp vs PreScheme vs janet

Specs

Current stable version

2.0.0

Platforms

Windows, MacOS/iOS, Linux /Android/Termux, *BSD, Solaris/SmartOS, HaikuOS, lots of others

License

MIT

IDE Support

https://github.com/nim-lang/Nim/wiki/editor-support

GZipped size

14,2 MB

CPU

All CPU architectures that have an ANSI C compiler or JavaScript interpreter

Top critics consensus

Whitespace blues, inconsistent, weird, confusing, not mainstream, unsafe

Compiles to

C, JavaScript

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

1.71.1

Platforms

Linux, MacOS X, Windows, BSD

License

MIT/Apache

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

C'18

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

ISO/IEC 9899:2011/Cor 1:2012 or C11

Typing discipline

static

Paradigm

imperative

Language type

imperative, ALGOL family

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

1.21.0

Platforms

Windows, Linux, Mac etc.

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

Google with Ken Thompson, Robert Griesemer, Rob Pike

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

Windows, Linux, Mac

License

MIT

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

Strong, static, inferred, structural

Paradigm

Multi-paradigm: procedural, object-oriented, concurrent

Language type

-

Developer

Alexander Medvednikov

Site

vlang.io, https://github.com/vlang

Current Version

0.4.x

Supported platforms

Windows, Mac, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, Solaris, Android, iOS

Development Status

Beta (contributors and developers welcomed)

V Language Review

https://ossinsight.io/analyze/vlang/v#overview

Zipped size

~12.5 MB

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

Windows, Linux, MacOS, embedded

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

0.11.0

Platforms

Windows, Mac, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Android, iOS

License

MIT

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

https://ziglang.org/

Current Version

master

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

38,900+

Zig Language Review

https://mikefsn.github.io/2022/10/18/goodbye-zig.html

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

2.101.2

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

https://dlang.org/

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

ISO/IEC 14882 or C++17

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

UE4 , Cocos-2d-x

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

ISO/IEC 7185:1990 Pascal and ISO/IEC 10206:1990 Extended Pascal

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

4.0.7

Platforms

-

License

LGPL version 2.1

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

http://ocaml.org

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

Linux, Windows, OSX, BSD

Price

Open source (Free)

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

3.7

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

Very good

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

Linux, BSD, OSX

License

Apache v2

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

Ary Borenszweig, Juan Wajnerman, Brian Cardiff

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

https://crystal-lang.org/

Crystal Language Review

https://ossinsight.io/analyze/crystal-lang/crystal#overview

Current stable version

1.11.2

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

3.61 MB (without required Erlang VM)

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

https://elixir-lang.org

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

2.1.0

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

Good quality IDE plugins for Jetbrains IDEs and Visual Studio Code

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

ECMA

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

Windows, Linux, Mac, Android, IOS

License

MIT, Open Source

IDE Support

Visual Studio on Windows, JetBrains Rider, Visual Studio Code on other platforms

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

ECMA

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

5.71

Platforms

Windows, Linux, Mac

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

Mac, Linux

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Current stable version

-

Platforms

-

License

-

IDE Support

-

GZipped size

-

CPU

-

Top critics consensus

-

Compiles to

-

Standard

-

Typing discipline

-

Paradigm

-

Language type

-

Developer

-

Site

-

Current Version

-

Supported platforms

-

Development Status

-

V Language Review

-

Zipped size

-

Commits

-

Zig Language Review

-

Engine

-

OS

-

Price

-

Website

-

Crystal Language Review

-

Pros + Cons

Pro
 Very good performance

Nim consistently benchmarks ahead of Go, Java, C#, Haskell, and of course all the scripting languages.
Comment

Pro
 Strong metaprogramming capabilities

Macros, templates, and compile-time constructs allow DSL's and simplification of code.
Comment

Pro
 Best ratio of performance to programmer difficulty

If you want the best performance at any cost you of course go with C, but most of the time you want to maximize both performance and developer effort. Nim's benchmark results are almost equal to Rust, and well ahead of Go, Java, C#, etc. Nim's programmer difficulty is almost as low as Python.
Comment

Pro
 Easy to read

Nim has a lot of common with Python in terms of syntax. Indentation-based syntax, for/while loops.
Comment

Pro
 Concise

Nim programs are concise, but readable.
Comment

Pro
 Really crossplatform

The same code can be used for web, server, desktop and mobile.
Comment

Pro
 Static and safe type system

Nim checks your code for type errors at compile-time.
Comment

Pro
 Supports UFCS (Unified Function Call Syntax)

writeLine(stdout, "hello") can be written as stdout.writeLine("hello") proc add(a: int): int = a + 5 can be used like 6.add.echo or 6.add().echo()
Comment

Pro
 Easy to integrate with another languages

You can use Nim with any language that can be interfaced with C. There's a tool which helps you to create new C and C++ bindings for Nim - c2nim. Also, you can use Nim with Objective C or even JavaScript (if you're compiling for these backends).
Comment

Pro
 Strict typing

Checks your code at compile time.
Comment

Pro
 Very fast compile time

Also, recompiling is often faster than plain GCC.
Comment

Pro
 Has built-in async support

Nim has "asyncdispatch" module, which allows you to write async applications.
Comment

Pro
 Python-like syntax

Readable, clean and familiar to Python developers.
Comment

Pro
 Multi paradigm

Imperative, OOP, functional programming in one language.
Comment

Pro
 Smaller binary size

Binary sizes for a compiled program tend to be smaller than other languages.
Comment

Pro
 Very easy FFI

Can easily import from C, C++, js with pragma.
Comment

Pro
 Compile-time execution

Nim has built-in VM, which executes macros and some other code at compile time. For example - you can check if you're on Windows, and Nim will generate code only for it.
Comment

Con
 Generics are a mess

Confused mishmash of conflicting ideas.
Comment

Con
 Memory management confusion

Multiple choices of garbage collection that causes confusion. Various times, nothing works particularly well.
Comment

Con
 Whitespace sensitive syntax

Burns eyes and is ugly.
Comment

Con
 Non-standard multithreading model

Nim has very strict rules on memory sharing between threads, in order to keep garbage collection latency to a minimum. Message passing and copying must be used. This will be changed when ARC memory management model will become the default (as of 1.2.0 it's an experimental option).
Comment

Pro
 Type inferencing

You only need to specify types in your procedures and objects - you don't need to specify type when you're creating a new variable (unless you're creating it without initialization).
Comment

Con
 You won't get a job programming with Nim

It's not a mainstream language.
Comment

Pro
 Built-in Unicode support

You can use unicode names for variables, there is "unicode" module for operations with unicode.
Comment

Con
 Weird thread model

Not turned on by default. Has very odd and convoluted rules on memory sharing between threads. Harder to use.
Comment

Pro
 Garbage collector is optional, we can mix GC and no-GC types in the same codebase

Comment

Pro
 Open Source

Open Source reference compiler, standard library, and ecosystem.
Comment

Con
 Lacks void / null safety

Easy to get involved in safety issues.
Comment

Pro
 Garbage-collected

You don't need to deal with all those manual memory allocations, Nim can take care of it! But also you can use another GC, or tweak it for your real-time application or a game.
Comment

Pro
 Has built-in unittest module

With built-in "unittest" module you can create tests with very readable code.
Comment

Pro
 Safe, race-free threading model

Safe, race-free threading model using the built-in disjoint check.
Comment

Pro
 Strikes great balance between performance and productivity

While Nim is really fast, it is also elegant and productive. Optional GC, python-like synthax and minimal design all help you solve real world problems.
Comment

Pro
 Grass-roots, community driven language

The development is not directed by a single, large company.
Comment

Pro
 All in one language

Very capable of being used for any front-end and back-end needs.
Comment

Pro
 Really cross-platform

The same code can be used for web, server, desktop, and mobile.
Comment

Con
 Tooling not yet as good as the more commercial languages

Compared to languages such as C#, Nim lacks great IDE support. The debugging tools are somewhat inconvenient to use.
Comment

Pro
 Swift like memory management (ARC)

Plain reference counting with move semantic optimizations, offers a shared heap. It offers deterministic performance for hard realtime systems.
Comment

Con
 Failed wannabe Python knockoff language

Created in 2008, Nim has failed to make TIOBE top 100 or PYPL rankings for programming languages. Pythoners can use alternatives like Cython or use the Codon compiler instead for a more Python-like experience.
Comment

Con
 Nim needs a lot more documentation

Details on features and how to use needs to be fully documented.
Comment

Con
 Version 1.0 just released (very new)

Not very stable and has a rather small community.
Comment

Con
 Nim likely to be supplanted by Mojo

Strong arguments that Mojo will mostly surpass or overshadow Nim as a Python alternative.
Comment

Con
 Community harsh if criticized

If one dares to start a discussion about a feature on discord, subreddit or github then one will be aggressively shut down.
Comment

Con
 Atrocious error messages

Unhelpful to users, wasting hours deciphering and extremely annoying.
Comment

Con
 Garbage collection/threading blues

For version 1.1 or 2.0 or whatever they should make the language more clear in the choices for garbage collection.
Comment

Con
 Garbage collection choices

Nim has multiple choices for garbage collection, and choosing which is best for your code may not be obvious.
Comment

Con
 Inconsistent name formatting

Headache creation with snake_case, pascalCase, and being case-insensitive too.
Comment

Con
 Con artist pushed useless language

False hype con artist language pushed by tricking Python users. Nobody need this language, not even on TIOBE index top 100 list, but it came out 2008. You not get job knowing Nim. Bad for even hobby, others better to learn and use.
Comment

Con
 No big name backer

Mostly unknown language that's not even on TIOBE's index top 100 nor has any big name corporate support.
Comment

Pro
 Great metaprogramming features

There are generics, templates, macros in Nim. They can allow you to write new DSL for your application, or avoid all boilerplate stuff.
Comment

Pro
 Type interferencing

You only need to specify types in your procedures and objects - you don't need to specify type when you're creating a new variable (unless you're creating it without initialization).
Comment

Con
 Unfinished (as of May 2018)

Still needs more polish, but it's getting better all the time.
Comment

Pro
 Helpful compiler

Since Rust is statically typed, you can catch multiple errors during compile time. This is extremely helpful with debugging, especially compared with dynamically typed languages that may fail silently during runtime. The compiler usually gives good explanations about what you did wrong and sometimes even proffers ways to fix things.
Comment

Con
 Integer generics unsolved

Although Rust supports generics, it does not yet support integer generics. Crates exist to alleviate issues with this, but the ultimate solution has yet to be done. This also affects generics with fixed-size arrays, although array slices are easily used as a workaround.
Comment

Con
 Does not provide stable ABI yet

The language does not provide stable ABI yet: different versions of the compiler may provide different backward-breaking machine code. There are a lot of things to be done before stabilizing the ABI. So if Rust-developers want to have stable ABI they use C one. As another result, every crate in Rust must be statically linked today.
Comment

Pro
 Dependency management

Rust has a simple-yet-advanced, platform-agnostic build and dependency management system called Cargo. Cargo provides a convenient and near effortless means to distribute reusable packages called crates. One can even define Git repositories as dependencies. At the same time, use of this system is entirely optional and reliable alternatives--such as Bazel--are readily available.
Comment

Pro
 Built-in concurrency

Rust has built-in support for concurrency.
Comment

Pro
 Generics support

You don't have to write the same array and dictionary classes hundreds or thousands of times to get strong compile-time type checking.
Comment

Pro
 Supports cross compilation for different architectures

Since Rust 1.8 you can install additional versions of the standard library for different targets using rustup/multirust. For example: $ rustup target add x86_64-unknown-linux-musl Which then allows for: $ cargo build --target x86_64-unknown-linux-musl
Comment

Con
 Significant time required to understand the language fully

There's the infamous borrow checker for example.
Comment

Pro
 Safe and unsafe code scopes

This mechanism ensures that if you stick with the safe code, there will be no memory issues. On the other hand, if you need (or want) to do something crazy, you totally can.
Comment

Pro
 Makes developers write optimal code

Rust is a modern programming language written around systems; it was designed from the ground up this way. The language design coerces developers into writing optimal code almost all the time and enables optimization of your program without requiring full knowledge and understanding the compiler's source code or the internals and quirks of your target processor(s)/architecture(s). Furthermore, Rust does not copy from memory unnecessarily, to give an example: all types move by default and not copy. Even references to types do not copy by default. In other words, setting a reference to another reference destroys the original one unless stated otherwise.
Comment

Con
 Very hard to read

The syntax is hard to read and very terse, which is bad for large code bases.
Comment

Pro
 Zero-cost futures or Async I/O

Comment

Pro
 Functional Programming

Very easy to create functional with some additional from structure application.
Comment

Pro
 Official package manager and build tool

Cargo is the official package manager for Rust. It comes with the language and downloads dependencies, compiles packages, and makes and uploads distributable packages
Comment

Pro
 Advanced, sanitary macros (a la lisp)

Macros facilitate code deduplication at a level unachievable with functions/classes/traits alone. Rust's macros are not like those from C/C++. They are safe, sanitary, and support strong-typing. Notable features include pattern matching, recursive invocation, and a small macro grammar (DSL).
Comment

Con
 Nearly no standard API

For nearly everything you will need to utilize a third party implementation (external crate).
Comment

Pro
 Big community

The biggest community contributing to language.
Comment

Pro
 Compiles to performant machine code

By leveraging LLVM as a backend, the Rust compiler produces efficient machine code from Rust sources. As a natural consequence, Rust programs and libraries tend to be (significantly) more performant than their interpreted contemporaries.
Comment

Con
 Low readability

Harder to read and understand language.
Comment

Con
 Low productivity

The compiler is too strict, such as ownership and borrowing checkers. Great difficulty with getting projects completed.
Comment

Pro
 Compiles to machine code allowing for extra efficiency

Rust uses LLVM as a backend, among other things this allows Rust code to compile down to machine languages. This allows developers to write programs that run as efficiently as possible.
Comment

Pro
 Threads without data races

Unique ownership system guarantees a mutable data to be owned and mutated by only one thread at a time, so there's no data race, and this guarantee is checked at compile time statically. Which means easy multi-threading. Of course, immutable data can be shared among multiple threads freely.
Comment

Con
 Long compile times

Way longer to compile than other languages.
Comment

Con
 Rust not as safe as it pretends to be

Rust problems: 1) Massive undisclosed usage of unsafe. 2) Massive amounts of memory safety CVEs - see details. 3) Large bloated Rust binaries increase attack surface for exploits. 4) Many corporate types claiming Rust is safe, don't actually program or use it (have some quiet financial interest to push it).
Comment

Pro
 Experienced developers can rapidly prototype & deliver products

Out of all the systems languages, and even non-systems languages, Rust seems to make its users the most productive. This phenomenon is an increasing trend which is regularly reported by those who have gained enough experience with Rust to call themselves Rust programmers. Newcomers often struggle with the borrowing and ownership mechanism, lifetimes, traits, generics, and all manner of concepts and capabilities that Rust offers which their University of choice, or languages that they were familiar with, did not prep them for. Yet once you have learned these concepts and internalized them, the static analysis offered by the compiler becomes one of your greatest assets to your development. With the rules internalized, there is never a time where you will fight with the borrow checker. It will simply point out mistakes that you've made along the way, and are usually addressed within a minute or two. It also makes major refactoring simple. Once your project compiles, there's a pretty good chance that it will work correctly on the first try. Any issues you encounter throughout development will exclusively be basic logic bugs, rather than critical issues common of other systems programming languages. Cargo is also no slouch, and in combination with Crates.io, it is trivial to develop, publish, discover, and use crates from the official crate repository within each of your software projects. Any small problem which can be made generic or separate from a project will likely be chipped off and wrapped in a crate for others to use. These crates can then be collectively audited and put to use in the wild, in real time. This makes it possible to develop highly optimized data structures and routines, and then quickly propagate them across the entire industry. The performance is the cherry on top. A prototype is easily transformed into a final product with a bit of optimization. Rewriting entire portions of your architecture to be highly parallel with a fine degree of granularity is also simple, due to traits like Send & Sync ensuring that data is properly shared across thread boundaries, and the borrowing and ownership system which ensures proper memory access patterns across threads.
Comment

Pro
 Support for macros

When you identify a part of your code which gets repeated often, which you cannot abstract using functions or classes, you can use Rust's built-in Macros.
Comment

Con
 Very ugly and verbose syntax

Compared to many languages. One tool needed to be productive is the language to be pleasing and effective, yet rust friction is as high as its safety.
Comment

Con
 Very time consuming to write

Comment

Pro
 Guaranteed memory safety, better than Nim with error help

With the outstanding ownership and borrowing system, no garbage collector, efficiency, concurrency, and intuitiveness backing it all up, these features make Rust the greatest language for Systems programming, especially with its larger base than Nim.
Comment

Pro
 Welcoming community full of talented engineers

The ecosystem of libraries is full of modular, ergonomic, and performant code written by many people smarter than I. It makes working with libraries a pleasant experience and one that is even better given Rust's notoriously friendly community.
Comment

Con
 Steep learning curve

Pretty strict and hard to adapt for beginners.
Comment

Pro
 Functional programming

Very easy to create functional with some additional from structure application.
Comment

Con
 Low-level programming language

This means that it encourages the programmer to be very careful in terms of how memory is allocated, etc. Most applications can run without exceeding the capacity of the server, even with an inefficient dynamic scripting language.
Comment

Con
 Not as useful or productive as advertised.

If really out here wanting to use something besides C/C++, in 98% of use cases, would do just as well or be better off using something other than Rust. Will complete the project faster, would be easier, will be happier, and nearly as safe (use newer language with optional GC).
Comment

Pro
 Easy to write understandable code

While not as verbose as Java, it still is much more verbose than languages like Go and Python. This means that the code is very explicit and easy to understand.
Comment

Con
 Very new and untested

At this point, one can look at their Github page and see in the issues that Rust isn't as safe as it is claimed to be. Safety is only second to weird conversations about "harmful" features. Old unsafe bugs don't get solved while discussions about some language feature having problematic names get solved quite fast. Despite strong claims of "safety first", Rust is still choosing itself what its place actually is. If one were to follow "safety first", Rust is simply not a good option for now.
Comment

Con
 Hard to find learning resources or libraries

Because it's still a relatively new language, Rust does not enjoy a following as large as other languages/environments. Rust development has also been rather volatile for a long time during the beginning of the development of the language adding to this issue. Because of the small community, it's harder to find useful libraries for projects or any other kind of resource.
Comment

Con
 Immature tooling & ecosystem

Compared to C/C++, there isn't yet the wide range of tools available (IDE's, static analysis, build systems), while unavoidable for any new language and improving over time - its a noticeable down-side.
Comment

Con
 Working with mutable state is expensive performance-wise

Comment

Pro
 Catch errors at compile-time

Since Rust is statically typed, you can catch multiple errors during compile time. This is extremely helpful with debugging, especially compared with dynamically typed languages that may fail silently during runtime.
Comment

Pro
 GUARENTEED MEMORY SAFETY, BETTER THAN NIM WITH ERROR HELP

With the outstanding ownership and borrowing system, no garbage collector, efficiency, concurrency, and intuitiveness backing it all up, these features make Rust the greatest language for Systems programming, especially with its larger base than Nim.
Comment

Con
 Asynchronous I/O is not (yet) a part of the core language

The issue of asynchronous I/O is still being discussed as a language feature, and not yet in the implementation phase.
Comment

Pro
 Extremely efficient

The C language's mentality is to trust the programmer. With all great powers comes great responsibilities. C allows you to harness the full power of the underlying hardware. No garbage collection is a blessing, not a curse. It forces the programmer to be aware of what he's writing. It's similar to getting frustrated with spoken languages because they don't have built-in autocorrect. Although it's easier to brainlessly write a text and let autocorrect do the work for you, you won't become better in the language this way, nor will you be able to better express yourself because you don't have to think about the grammar of the language. Having to think about resources and how to best implement everything, coupled with the relatively low-level of C in general. Makes C programs extremely efficient and fast.
Comment

Pro
 Portable

C is portable between most hardware. Generally a C compiler is made for any new architecture, and already exists for existing architectures. C is portable between all operating systems (Windows, UNIX and Mac) and only needs a program to be recompiled to work. This allows anyone on any operating system to learn about the language and not be held back by intricacies of their operating system. With this said, C's portability these days is not quite what it used to be. Much of said portability relies on the POSIX standard in particular, and as time passes, the compliance of a given system with that standard is becoming less certain; especially in the case of Linux. Most things will still be portable (or at least emulatable) between Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD for example; but you will at times need to make use of platform-specific support libraries for certain individual cases, as well.
Comment

Pro
 Industry standard

C is the industry standard programming language, moreover, it is the most popular programming language to use. C is the language used for most Windows, UNIX and Mac operating systems.
Comment

Pro
 Simple

C has a very minimal syntax that makes it easy to pick up, create a compiler for and use.
Comment

Pro
 Helps with learning other languages later

A lot of languages used in the industry have a C-like syntax (C++, Java, Javascript, C#, PHP) and starting with C will help new developers to be familiar with it's syntax and by extensions with the syntax of many popular languages.
Comment

Pro
 Understanding of computers

Learning C forces you to grapple with the low-level workings of your computer (memory management, pointers, etc.) in ways that the other languages abstract away. Without an understanding of these low-level aspects of computer programming you will be limited if you try to develop an application that needs to run in a memory or performance constrained environment. Other languages like Python can obscure a lot of details, so your foundation may be weaker.
Comment

Pro
 Very compact

C is compact and very fast. It is ideal for embedded programming, which requires only small resources. C is straight forward and very portable especially in a Unix environment. Most popular languages are descendant from C. C programmers do not requires any fancies like class, template or overloading, etc. Those not only make for confusion, but also bloat the object code. Efficient C code utilizes every bit of the machine it is running on.
Comment

Pro
 Low level of abstraction

While higher level languages languages like Java and Python provide possibilities to be "more expressive" per line of code, it's much more convenient to start with "less efficient" (get me right) language, in order to get initial concepts of how things behave at lower level. Actually C is a good starting point moving to both higher and lower levels of abstraction, the good example here would be learning C before Assembler, as for general use the Assembler quite hard to understand due to low level of its abstraction (like getting the understanding on how loops work in C before trying to implement them on Assembler).
Comment

Pro
 Teaches good practices

Writing in C will require you to understand how things are done. C implies using and understanding the fundamentals. Learning a higher-level language after is much easier.
Comment

Pro
 More control over the code

Comment

Pro
 Pleasing to the programmer

Whether you are writing application code or trying to code-golf something down to the fewest bytes and milliseconds (perhaps both at the same time) possible, as opposed to languages such as C++, notoriously painful to read and debug, C's simplicity at its heart will make the job much less annoying.
Comment

Pro
 Must-have

Capability to program in C is greatly appreciated in developers, creates an image of competency, and many programmers will learn it at some point in their careers.
Comment

Pro
 Easy to drop down to assembly.

Sometimes you really need to program directly in assembly. C’s ABI and common compiler extensions make this a piece of cake.
Comment

Pro
 Portable between CPU architectures

C was designed to be independent of any particular machine architecture, and so with a little care, it is easy to write "portable" programs (see here). By design, C provides constructs that map efficiently to typical machine instructions, and therefore it has found lasting use in applications that had formerly been coded in assembly language like operating systems or small embedded systems.
Comment

Pro
 C is simple with lesser rules than any other language

C is standardized and it is the goto language when you have to speed things up
Comment

Pro
 Basic concepts can be applied to accelerate learning any other language

You can easily pivot knowledge learned here and apply it to almost every other language.
Comment

Pro
 The king of languages, imitated, extended but never equalled

Made of a small set of keywords and rules, only your imagination is the limit. Above all, when it comes to 'pro' programming, C is the only one to rely on.
Comment

Pro
 Ubiquitous

There is a C compiler available for probably every computer system in existence today.
Comment

Pro
 Easy to drop down to assembly

Sometimes you really need to program directly in assembly. C’s ABI and common compiler extensions make this a piece of cake.
Comment

Pro
 Foundational, difficult but important

Learning C will teach valuable skills and transferrable understanding of computing. While learning a scripting language may be easier, students will not understand system constraints and performance problems, nor what features like garbage collection are actually doing in other languages.
Comment

Con
 Unsafe

C makes it extremely easy to make mistakes. Your language should help you be productive by abstracting mistakes away from you.
Comment

Con
 Lack of support for first class strings

C does not support the string type, nor does it support UTF-8 strings that modern languages are employing today. Instead of strings, C makes use of the *char type which is a pointer to a character array.
Comment

Con
 Language is full of corner cases and undefined behaviors

Undefined behavior in a program can cause unexpected results, making it hard to debug. With UB, program behavior may vary wildly depending on optimization settings. There are many cases that invoke UB, such as signed overflow, invalid dereferences, large integer shifts, uninitialized variables, etc. These serve to frustrate novice programmers when they could be learning other concepts.
Comment

Con
 Arrays are not first class objects

When an array is passed to a function, it is converted to a pointer, even though the prototype confusingly says it's an array. When this conversion happens, all array type information gets lost. C arrays also cannot not be resized, which means that even simple aggregates like a stack are complicated to implement. C arrays also cannot be bounds checked, because they don't know what the array bounds are.
Comment

Con
 Does not support modules; header file annoyances

Header files are a poor man's implementation of modules. Modern programming languages make use of modules which eliminate the need for C includes and header files and the many issues caused by them, such as the complete lack of dependency checking. Header files often contain even more include statements that point to other header files which also point to even more which drastically increases compile time. Modules only have to be compiled once, and when importing those modules into your software project, you only have to pull in the module that you are using, which is often times already precompiled. This way, the compiler knows exactly what it needs before beginning to compile your project and can automatically compile the few dependencies it needs in advance rather than recursively compiling every header file it runs across as in C.
Comment

Con
 Completely lacks type safety

The C standard library is not type safe, and the language itself does not promote type safety built into the language, which leads to error-proneness of the language. If anything, it would be recommended that those interested in C to instead put their time in D, which actually includes a complete copy of the C standard library rewritten to be fully type safe.
Comment

Con
 Only offers basic support for source code split into multiple files

Modern programming languages are capable of compiling split source code files by concatenating them together efficiently at compile time before compiling them. However, C requires the developer to resort to messing with header files and makefiles to get similar functionality.
Comment

Con
 Includes require obscene resources to compile

All the modern languages have resulted in ditching the ancient deprecated model of #include statements and have instead adopted the superior model of modules. When compiling software written in C, the programmer is forced to also compile X headers which contain Y headers which contain Z headers and so forth -- drastically increasing the number of lines that need to be compiled. In order to compile something as simple as "Hello, World", for example, 18K lines of code needs to be compiled. This can be very taxing on RAM and CPU resources, causing compile times to quickly absorb a large portion of the programming process.
Comment

Pro
 If you can't grok C you should not be a professional programmer

It sets an early bar that if you can't hurdle you might as well do something other than programming and not waste any more of your time.
Comment

Pro
 Easy to install and configure; simple to compile software

Go software can be immediately installed, regardless of your operating system, package manager, or processor architecture with the go get command. Software is compiled statically by default so there is no need to worry about software dependencies on the client system. Makefiles and headers are no longer necessary, as the package system automatically resolves dependencies, downloads source code and compiles via a single command: go build.
Comment

Pro
 The go compiler compiles binaries instantly — as fast as a scripting language interpreter

Compiled binaries are fast — about as fast in C in most cases. Compiles on every OS without effort — truly cross-platform compiler. As a result of the fast compilation speed, you can use the gorun program to use go source code as if it was a scripting language. The workflow is comparable to that of a scripting language.
Comment

Pro
 Great language for building networking services

Go was started as a systems language but now it has fully committed in the niche of networking services. This has been a brilliant move by Go because it allows them to capitalize on the immense talent of the Go engineering team (who are in the most part network engineers). In a world dominated by Java EE and slow scripting language, Go was a breath of fresh air and it continues to be one of the most powerful languages if you want to build networking services.
Comment

Pro
 Simplified C-like syntax that is as easy to read and write as Python

The language is designed in a manner that seems logical. Syntax is simplified to reduce burden on the programmer and compiler developers.
Comment

Pro
 Automatically generates API documentation for installed packages

Godoc is provided to automatically generate API documentation for Go projects. Godoc also hosts it’s own self-contained web server that will list documentation for all installed packages in your Go path.
Comment

Pro
 Exceptionally simple and scalable multithreaded and concurrent programming

Simply prepend a function with go to execute it concurrently. Utilizes channels for communication between goroutines which aids to prevent races and makes synchronizing threads effortless. The maximum number of threads to use may be defined at compile time, even if that is limiting goroutines to run on one thread.
Comment

Con
 Performance slowdown because of indirect calls and garbage collection

Practically no meaningful Go application can be written without indirect function calls and garbage collection, these are central to Go's core infrastructure. But these are major impediments to achieving good performance.
Comment

Pro
 Golang is a systems programming language

See here.
Comment

Pro
 API documentation is rich in content; easy to memorize

Only features deemed critical are added to the language to prevent cruft from working it's way into the language. The language is small enough to fit inside one's head without having to repeatedly open documentation. Documentation is hosted on an official webpage in a manner that is simple to read and understand.
Comment

Pro
 Supports 'modules' in the form of packages

Every Go source file contains a package line that indicates which package a file belongs to. If the name of the package is 'main', it indicates that this is a program that will be compiled into a binary. Otherwise, it will recognize that it is a package.
Comment

Pro
 Performance is on the order of C and Java

Go is blazing fast, but easier to write than Python, JS, Ruby, or many other dynamic languages.
Comment

Pro
 C libraries available

Thanks to Cgo, it is possible to interface practically ale C libraries to Go.
Comment

Pro
 No Class-based OOP

Uses more generalized OO concepts. Faster to write, easier to understand, and easier to troubleshoot.
Comment

Pro
 Easy to install and configure; simple to compile software

Go software can be immediately installed, regardless of your operating system, package manager, or processor architecture with the go get command. Software is compiled statically by default so there is no need to worry about software dependencies on the client system. Makefiles and headers are no longer necessary, as the package system automatically resolves dependencies, downloads source code and compiles via a single command: go build.
Comment

Pro
 Programmers don't have to argue over what 10% subet of the language to implement in their software project

The language promotes programming in a specific idiomatic style, which helps keep every programmer on the same page.
Comment

Pro
 Demonstrates a unique, simple concept to object-oriented programming

All types are essentially objects, be they type aliases or structs. The compiler automatically associates types to their methods at compile time. Those methods are automatically associated to all interfaces that match. This allows you to gain the benefits of multiple inheritance without glue code. As a result of the design, classes are rendered obsolete and the resulting style is easy to comprehend.
Comment

Con
 Forces K&R style and won't allow Allman style

Golang developers were extremely short-sighted and biased by forcing the K&R style, which should never have happened. Basically kicking Allman style users out of their language.
Comment

Con
 Golang controlled by Google

Solves Google problems, which might not be your or the majority of user's problems. Was created for the benefit and purposes of Google, so is less flexible in language direction and options.
Comment

Con
 It appears Google uses position to snuff out or suppress other languages

Newer languages that could threaten Golang (or other Google controlled languages) appear to have suppressed search results on Google and YouTube. Dangerous situation where large company can manipulate user choice and market share. The freedom to freely choose and user rights need to be protected.
Comment

Con
 Designed to make the programmer expendable

Go was designed for large team projects where many contributors may be incompetent. That Go can still get things done under these conditions is a testament to its utility in this niche. Go's infamously weak abstraction power is thus a feature, not a bug, meant to prevent your teammates from doing too much damage. This also means any team member can be easily replaced by another code monkey at minimum cost. Good for the company, bad for you. The more talented programmers, on the other hand, will be very frustrated by having one hand tied behind their back.
Comment

Con
 Easy to shadow variable

Due to single character only difference, declare and assign statement can easily shadow variable from outer scope unconsciously. Example: err := nil if xxx { err := somefunctionthatreturnsanerr } return err // always return nil
Comment

Pro
 Great team working behind it

Go has a solid team of engineers working on it (some of the best networking engineers in the world are working on Go). Up until now, the great engineering of the language has compensated for its lack of power.
Comment

Con
 No classes

Go lacks classes which can become burden when you have to compose 15 different structs to solve the single problem. It also disallows a lot of abstraction that'd be easily solved using classes.
Comment

Con
 Doesn't have true enums

Golang does weirdness with const versus having real enums, like other languages. This reflects the stubbornness and shortsightedness of the core developers, similar to the issue with generics, where it was denied that it was needed until it became too obvious that it should have been added years ago.
Comment

Con
 Does not have sum types

Makes it harder to have functions of different parameters types in a non OOP language. Thus messy generics and interfaces, and more confusion, where sum types could have solved a number of issues.
Comment

Con
 Emphasis recently shifted from tech to woke politics

Comment

Pro
 Multiple variables may be assigned on a single line

This conveniently eliminates the need to create temporary variables. Fibonacci example: x, y = y, x+y
Comment

Con
 Lacks support for immutable data

Only way to prevent something from being mutated is to make copies of it, and to be very careful to not mutate it.
Comment

Pro
 Built-in testing framework

The idiomatic approach to writing a Go software project is to perform test-driven development with unit testing. Every source code file should have an associated *_test.go file which tests functions in the code.
Comment

Con
 Hard to abstract even the simplest notions

Go is famously regarded as very simple. However, this simplicity becomes problematic in time. Programmers who use Go find themselves over and over again writing the same thing from a very low point of view. Domains not already served by libraries that are easy to glue are very difficult to get into.
Comment

Pro
 Go get and Go fmt

You need a module, no problem, grab it via go get. On the other hand with other programming languages, you always have troubles with indentation and the in-house rules for writing brackets. go fmt solves this problem, and unifies the experience across the professional shops as well as freelancers.
Comment

Pro
 Provides tools for automatically formatting code for your entire software project

This helps keep every programmer on the same page in a project and eliminates arguments over formatting styles.
Comment

Pro
 Syntax for exported code from a package is simplified to be less verbose than other languages

Any variable, type and function whose name begins with a capital letter will be exported by a project, while all other code remains private. There is no longer a need to signify that a piece of code is 'private' or 'public' manually.
Comment

Pro
 Built-in unit testing

The idiomatic approach to writing a Go software project is to perform test-driven development with unit testing. Every source code file should have an associated *_test.go file which tests functions in the code.
Comment

Pro
 Provides tools for automatically formatting code for your entire software project

This helps keep every programmer on the same page in a project and eliminates arguments over formatting styles.
Comment

Pro
 Supports splitting source code into multiple files

As long as every source code file in a directory has the same package name, the compiler will automatically concatenate all of the files together during the compilation process.
Comment

Pro
 Fresh concept nowdays

The lang is written from scratch according to current hardware possibilities and what people expect from them. Can handle great both system-level scripts/tools and high-level complex network services.
Comment

Con
 Implementation of interfaces are difficult to figure out

Finding out what interfaces are implemented by a struct requires a magic crystal ball. They are easy to write, but difficult to read and trawl through.
Comment

Pro
 Supports functional programming techniques such as function literals

This naturally also supports first class and high order functions, so you may pass functions as variables to other functions.
Comment

Con
 No forms designer

For someone who's used to Visual Studio, Go lacks the luxury of having a forms designer for rapid development.
Comment

Con
 No generics

Not true anymore. Golang from 1.18, has generics.
Comment

Pro
 Golang is a Systems Programming Language !!

https://www.quora.com/Is-Go-a-systems-programming-language
Comment

Pro
 Fast like C

V is easier than C and fast like C.
Comment

Pro
 C Interop

Can import C libraries, structs, and headers.
Comment

Pro
 Cross-platform

Compile to many OSes.
Comment

Pro
 Simplicity

V is simple and powerful.
Comment

Pro
 Can create multi-OS GUIs

Multi-OS GUI creation is more integrated into the language than others.
Comment

Pro
 Clear syntax

Highly understandable language.
Comment

Pro
 Sum types

V has Sum Types.
Comment

Pro
 Generics

V has generics.
Comment

Pro
 Closures

V has closures, which gives the user additional options and usefulness.
Comment

Pro
 Safety

V is very safe.
Comment

Pro
 Single paradigm

Follows the philosophy that there should be only one way to do something, as opposed to multi-paradigm languages like C++.
Comment

Pro
 Supports concurrency and channels

Can run functions concurrently that communicate over channels.
Comment

Pro
 Fast compile times

Compiles programs fast, less waiting around, so more productive and fun.
Comment

Pro
 Friendly and helpful community

Just check the V Discord channel or their GitHub Discussions and you will see by yourself.
Comment

Pro
 Inline assembly

Can add Assembly code.
Comment

Con
 Rapid changes in a language syntax/features

Since V language under a continuous development and core syntax and features will be "frozen" in a version 1.0.0, updating from older version of a language can cause a code rewrite of previously working program.
Comment

Con
 V 1.0 release was planned for December 2019

The first version of the language was publicly released in June of 2019, version 0.1.x. First beta version of the language was released June of 2022, version 0.3. x. Language has progressed faster than most. Welcomes contributors to join the project.
Comment

Con
 Some of core language features are in a prototype stage

Some core features that were described on the main webpage, like autofree or C-to-V translator, are in a prototype stage. That means that there is a working code, that doesn't cover all possible use cases yet.
Comment

Pro
 Highly tunable error checking

There are many error conditions. There can be tampering with containers, there can be integer overflow, there can be contract violation. Other programming languages suffer from "one size fits all" choice. You need checks - you pick one language, you want performance - you pick another language. Whatever language you pick, having written 1M LoC, you cannot undo your decision. Not in Ada. Ada is not only appealing by being able to check many conditions but also being able not to check them if requested so. Ada can be safe, Ada can be fast. No need to have multiple languages. Investments in Ada code are secure.
Comment

Pro
 Safety Critical Application, IOT

Comment

Pro
 Catches integer overflows and range errors, but they don't start an apocalypse

Some "system" programming languages make it hard to catch integer overflows and range errors. Another ones advertise catching them, but what they forget to mention is that catching such error starts an apocalypse. A condition that is either impossible or hard to handle properly. Ada is designed by sane people. In Ada these ones are usual exceptions. Let us show 500 error, but please don't shutdown the whole webserver. No apocalypse today, thanks.
Comment

Pro
 Excellent module system

Ada is not a basketball game where any player can come and put ball into basket. Modules cannot go and put entities (constants, functions, types) into arbitrary namespaces. And there is no "root" namespace polluted by non-namespace aware "modules". No games here. Everything is well defined. Modules (packages) only put everything into their own namespace. Every entity is easily traced to its origin. Also, unlike some other system programming languages, "." is not for beauty. Packages have hierarchy. For instance, Ada.Text_IO.Stream_IO is allowed to provide stream interface to Ada.Text_IO because private part of Ada.Text_IO is accessible to children packages. This is more convenient access granting system than ones found in other programming languages.
Comment

Pro
 Expressive types

Comment

Pro
 Design by contract

Eiffel's killer feature without Eiffel's ultimate blocker. Design by contract - yes, tracing garbage collection - no.
Comment

Pro
 Really hermetic type system

In some other programming languages Boolean(5) is an easy way to make Boolean value that is neither strictly True nor strictly False. Some programming languages don't even have this concept defined properly. Booleans, characters, numbers, everything is blurred, everything is shaking. Nothing shakes in Ada. In practice one is almost guaranteed to not ever stumble across invalid value. One is almost guaranteed that "Positive" value will indeed be positive and "Natural" value won't be negative. And it does not take much effort to support it, Ada programs are fast and slim, notably more efficient than some other programming languages pretending for safety, but failing to at least deliver strictly positive numbers.
Comment

Con
 Different libraries use different basic types

Is it possible for anyone to write custom string type? Yes, so let's do this. Is it possible for anyone to write custom container? Yes, so let's do this. This democracy comes at a cost. In some another programming language "a list of string" may virtually always be the same thing for mutually unaware developers, so you get two programming libraries and put them together, toll-free. In Ada this is very likely to not be true. Ada Web Server introduces custom containers, GNATCOLL introduces custom strings. Both libraries are maintained by same vendor. Writing glue conversion code is unfortunately required.
Comment

Pro
 Strongly typed generic containers

Comment

Pro
 Almost any target is reachable using C/C++ compiler

There is a certified (ACATS validated) Ada compiler on top of C or C++ (actually 4 switches for fine tuning). It knows how to check integer overflow even if C/C++ compiler does not know. It can provide symbolic backtrace on almost any platform. With a special key generated C/C++ code whistleblows about entering and leaving functions. Just think about it. Your target may only have C compiler available. Yet if you get Ada, all integer operations are checked, and if exception happens, you have symbolic backtrace. RAII also works on top of C compilers.
Comment

Pro
 RAII and finalization

Can you imagine living without it?
Comment

Pro
 Traditional OOP

One does not have to figure out how to map familiar classes to haskellish traits or arithmetic types in Rust. One does not have to learn to put box into box, like in Go. Good or bad, comparably conservative OOP is here. Class hierarchies, abstract interfaces, they just exist when one does not want to experiment with alien technologies. Ada's OOP innovation is synchronized interfaces for tasks and Hoare monitors, but that is another story.
Comment

Con
 Smart pointers are not built-in

ARC is indeed possible in a programming language having RAII and finalization, but programming language does not further assist to implement ARC. You got the tools, now you are on your own. Every programming language has an economic foundation. For C++, it's C compatibility, so problems arising from it are not going to leave. For Ada economic foundation is SPARK. What can be verified, is going to thrive. What cannot be verified, lacks attention. In SPARK until recently there were no pointers. Now they are going to be introduced, but they will be unique. Unique pointers means nothing to count, no reference counting. Implementing references (smart pointers) is verbose. Someone does it by hand, someone uses code generator from UML.
Comment

Con
 C/C++ transpiler is stuck to Ada 95 revision

There are many developers still using Ada 95 compilers because there was no update for their hardware. They maintain libraries to be Ada 95 compatible. The hardware that can usually make one be locked to Ada 95 choice is rare (usually military) and has alternatives, but one special case is very notable. Current seller of Ada->C/C++ does almost nothing to improve compiler, so it's not moving anywhere. It stays on Ada 95 edition. This vendor is not known in Ada community, they are seemingly only collecting money from rent (they are not original developers). Better than nothing, but that's what we've got so far. Ada 95 is still very great, even compared to C++20. C++20 only recently got std::span, Ada's array parameters were like that since Ada 95. But all the hype stuff, all the list comprehensions will not be for you if you want to secure your time investments by making sure all your code can be compiled to C/C++ to run on any target.
Comment

Con
 IDE not mature

Comment

Pro
 Some safety

It's safer than C, at least.
Comment

Pro
 C Interop

Zig programs can import C libraries and export header files to be used in C programs.
Comment

Pro
 Performance

Zig is pretty fast, in some cases even faster than C.
Comment

Pro
 Cross-compilation is easy

The Zig compiler can build artifacts for any Tier 3 Supported platform without additional downloads.
Comment

Pro
 Control flow is simple and obvious

No operator overloading, property methods, runtime dispatch, macros, etc.
Comment

Pro
 Small binary

Produces binary smaller than C.
Comment

Pro
 Compile-time execution

Zig can execute code at compile-time, allowing for more performant and readable programs.
Comment

Con
 Convoluted syntax

Claims to be an improvement over C, but in this area, not really.
Comment

Con
 No lambdas

Missing many key and useful features other languages have.
Comment

Con
 Deceptively gives impression it's near being production ready

No plans to hit 1.0 until 2025 (3 years later), according to Zig Roadmap speech. Impression is given that (0.9.1) language was close to ready, when it's not.
Comment

Con
 Creator admits to not knowing what he's doing

Creator admits his shortcomings during Zig Roadmap speech. Very disturbing. Not a language to invest in or take seriously, outside personal experimentation.
Comment

Con
 No closures

Does not have closures.
Comment

Pro
 No Hidden Control flow

Zig will not do anything on your back that might slow down your program & make you loose your control over your program.
Comment

Con
 Almost no community

Lacking in libraries and users.
Comment

Con
 No interfaces/traits

Features that are useful are missing, where you can find them in other languages.
Comment

Con
 Fundraising looks suspicious

Why do we keep seeing an overhyped unfinished alpha level language showing up everywhere? That answer looks like a financial incentive to promote the language, the Zig Software Foundation, that is making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from donations. To aggressively maintain cash flow, it appears any opinions that goes against their narrative is suppressed, attacked, or eliminated. All while the hype machine runs rampant. That isn't a language for the people, that looks to be a cash grab for the few that will result in nothing useful. Save yourself the headache and games, better to just use C or other languages with C-like syntax, can interface with C, and are actually useful. Better to not waste your valuable time on crap like Zig, false media hype, or getting scammed. ”If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” This blog has published 2 excellent articles on how Zig's claims do not live up to reality after more than 6 years of development. Article 1 Article 2
Comment

Con
 Poor compiler errors

Several years into development, language still a mess, and no hope of fixing itself for yet more years later.
Comment

Con
 No standard package manager

Several years into development, and still no standard package manager is ridiculous.
Comment

Con
 Exhibits cult-like behavior and animosity towards other programming languages

Strange culture that bashes other languages and are not open to criticism about the faults of their language. Very close-minded, sometimes scary.
Comment

Pro
 Provides a powerful data structure on top of C's arrays called slices

D provides a structure that builds on C's arrays called slices. A slice is a segment of an array that tracks the pointer and the length of the segment. Slices are extremely powerful because they combine the protection of knowing the length of the data with the garbage collector that manages the memory backing that data, thus avoiding most memory corruption issues.
Comment

Con
 Not widely used

Comment

Pro
 Provides templates to support generic programming

D templates offer a clean way to support generic programming while offering the power of partial specialization. Template classes and template functions are available, along with variadic template arguments and tuples.
Comment

Con
 Lack of vision

D is community-driven and lacks the support of any large corporation. While this increases the amount of talent and engineering abilities of the people working on D, it also brings a severe lack of charisma, leadership and vision.
Comment

Pro
 Easy to read and understand code

Comment

Pro
 Unit testing built-in

D provides unittest blocks to insert code that verifies functions preform their expected behavior and document edge cases. Since these are enabled with a compiler switch, there is no need to teach new programmers how to install new libraries and import modules, instead training on test driven design can start from the very first function.
Comment

Pro
 Offers rdmd for compiled scripting

Because of the very fast compilation, D can very convinietly be used for scripting, too. No need to switch to an other language for prototyping either.
Comment

Pro
 Easy and powerful module systems

Since source files have a one-to-one correspondence with modules, you don't have to #include the text of a file of declarations, you only need to import the module. This way, there's no need to worry about importing the same module several times and no need to wrap header files with #ifndef/#endif.
Comment

Pro
 Automatic & manual memory Management

D uses a garbage collector to manage memory. This eliminates the error prone process of manually allocating memory in languages that don't have a garbage collector. Despite this, the new and delete operations can be overridden for some classes to allow custom allocation.
Comment

Con
 All the downsides of garbage collection without any of its benefits

When D decided to implement garbage collection it instantly alienated a large community of developers (C and C++ programmers). For them, the official policy has been: "Don't want garbage collection? Use D with RAII or manual management style!". While true, it's also absolutely pointless because there's little to none support for alternate memory management styles in the standard library, which means that a new user will have to start with a language that is stripped down of the core infrastructure. On the other hand, for those people who want to use garbage collection, the implementation of it is lackluster. However, with the latest versions of the D compilers, you can now directly use C++ standard library classes like std::vector and std::queue in your D code.
Comment

Con
 Poor adoption even after many years of existence

There's a widely accepted perception of D as a language that has been poorly adopted. Since adoption is driven by perception this becomes a fact. So managers and engineers start becoming nervous in adopting a language that has such a perception among the community and that has been so unsuccessful for so long.
Comment

Pro
 Provable purity and immutability

The compiler can check that functions don't have side effects, extremely important for functional programming in concurrent scenarios, and can check immutability. Therefore, the compiler will prove that your programs are functionally pure and respect immutable data, if you want it to.
Comment

Pro
 Extremely powerful user types

For example you can make your own type that behaves like a JavaScript variable (nice for using JSON based REST APIs)
Comment

Pro
 Compile-time functions

D can run powerful functions totally at compile time. Lots of standard library code is implemented in such a way that it can be run at compile time. Almost any computational work can be done at compile time.
Comment

Pro
 Very fast compilation

Huge project with dozens of source files like "dlangui" compiles in seconds. The DMD compiler can compile its own standard library, code generation backend (dmc++), and frontend from scratch within three minutes.
Comment

Pro
 Has a very rich standard library Phobos

Phobos library is a part of standard compiler package. Phobos implements everything that standard C++ library has including structures and algorithms similar to C++ STL, also many extra features that you can find in C++ boost.
Comment

Pro
 Designed for concurrency and parallelism

Supports first-class functionality for both concurrency and parallelism, offered as part of the standard library.
Comment

Pro
 Faster than all c++ competitors

Comment

Pro
 It's a state-of-art evolution of C

Comment

Pro
 Has an open source implementation

D has at least two robust open source compilers: GDC ( gcc-based D compiler) and LDC (LLVM-based D compiler)
Comment

Pro
 Easy to integrate with C and C++

D practically has the same memory structure as C and C++; all D does it build a structure around that. The entire C standard library is accessible at no cost (syntactic or speed) and it's being worked on allowing the same for the C++ standard library.
Comment

Pro
 Lots of powerful meta programming features

In D almost anything can be done in field of meta programming and self-reflection, there are many features in the language that allow easily to get information about anything that happens in the code.
Comment

Pro
 Industrial quality

Comment

Pro
 Memory safe language subset - SafeD

SafeD is a possibility for compiler to check functions not to use unsafe operations that can lead to memory corruptions, also bounds of structures are checked. Thus SafeD almost guaranties that your code will not corrupt memory and crash.
Comment

Pro
 Great packaging and build system DUB

DUB simplifies compiling/building project of any complexity by specifying all project settings inside JSON build file, there you can list all source files and project folders, also list all necessary dependency packages and their versions. All public DUB packages are stored in DUB online registry (https://code.dlang.org/) and available for direct usage in your code.
Comment

Pro
 Built-in Unicode support

Comment

Pro
 Compile-time Function Execution

Comment

Con
 Failed at becoming viable alternative to C or C++

Almost as complex and convoluted as C++, but lacking in popularity or corporate adoption.
Comment

Pro
 Powerful mixins mechanism

D has mixins that allow to generate and embed any code at compile time. This is a powerful replacement for macros in C++.
Comment

Pro
 Has an improved C subset

With few exceptions, D will either compile C code to work exactly as when compiled as C, or it won't compile - it won't quietly change the semantics of C code and give unexpected results. This means that D contains an improved C, as it fails compilation where type safety is missing in C. This allows learning the same machine operations available in C and other low-level languages.
Comment

Pro
 Asynchronous I/O that doesn’t get in your way

Because all types can be treated as objects, all files can call functions in the same manner -- even stdin and stdout. stdout.writeln(); stdin.readln(); file.writeln(); file.readln();
Comment

Pro
 Doesn't force you to deal with memory management

When you're just starting out, dealing with manual memory management and its bugs is a huge pain! D is garbage collected by default, which removes a huge class of things that could go wrong. And later on, if you decide you don't want or need the GC, you can turn it off.
Comment

Pro
 Supports calling functions from types in an object-oriented manner.

if (exists(file)) {} may be written as if (file.exists) {}. writeln(file); may be written as file.writeln(); isDivisibleBy(10, 2); may be written as 10.isDivisibleBy(2); writeln(isEven(add(5, 5))); may be written as 5.add(5).isEven().writeln();
Comment

Pro
 Implements all wanted features that C++ was missing

D was created as an improvement and replacement for C++. D implements all features that were long wanted and missing in C++, also all drawbacks of C++ were fixed.
Comment

Pro
 Generative programming

mixin template, UDAs, templates, -- these turn the compiler into a code generation tool that writes code for you
Comment

Pro
 Easy to make reusable code by using ranges

D uses a type called range which provides a common interface to a sequence of values, therefore making it simpler to write code that works on arbitrary data, thereby making it reusable.
Comment

Con
 Reference implementation is now open source

Part of the reference compiler DMD was made at Symantec, and is now open-source and available for everyone to use freely.
Comment

Pro
 Static with type inference

For a new user adding types can feel tedious, and takes focus off the meaning of the code, but they are also important for checking logic. D provides static types, and a good system to infer types, so types are checked when calling functions, but do not need to be specified everywhere, making it feel more dynamic.
Comment

Con
 Now permissively licensed

Comment

Con
 Garbage Collected

While optional, this uses a garbage collected runtime.
Comment

Pro
 Bultin package manager and build system DUB

Hundreds of very useful libraries you can install and link with one command. Npm/pip/gem for system language C++ developers wandered their whole life. You can see the libraries here.
Comment

Pro
 Highly portable

Implementations exist for hundreds of operating environments, from mainframes and super computers all the way down to tiny embedded devices.
Comment

Pro
 Powerful generic (meta) programming capabilities with templates

When you leverage the power of the c++ templating system enough, you can make the compiler execute a Turing complete program. You can even e.g. calculate prime numbers during compile time. This is far more powerful than simple generics in e.g. Java and C#. On top of type safe containers one can use it to e.g. Static polymorphism (polymorphism without performance cost) More type safety without performance cost Functional programming / lazy evaluation
Comment

Pro
 Multi-Paradigm

Supports procedural, object oriented, generic, and other paradigms.
Comment

Pro
 Class destructor support

Resource Acquisition Is Initialization is actually a term used in c++ to basically say it has destructors. Originally it is used to free class resources. But because class destructors are called guaranteed at the end of the scope of where a value is used, one can leverage this property to do all kinds of useful things which are not so nicely done in other languages. E.g. automatically close a file when it is not needed, close a socket, stop monitors, free resource handles etc. One does not need to remember to end a try-catch block with a finalize section, or call Dispose() on IDisposable class datamembers.
Comment

Pro
 C code can be used in C++ code

Most C code will work as C++.
Comment

Pro
 Huge language supports most everything

C++ is a large language with an even larger community and following. It has libraries for every kind of task that is possible to do with C++
Comment

Con
 Atrocious complexity

The grammar is undecidable. Subtle errors can make the meaning of the program "undefined" by the spec.
Comment

Pro
 Powerful memory management

Allows puting large arrays on the "heap" to avoid "stack overflow".
Comment

Pro
 Excellent compiler optimization

Both open source compilers (such as Clang and GCC), and proprietary ones (like Intel's and Microsoft's) are very good at analyzing program flow and program optimization. This is mostly due to the widespread usage of C/C++ applications running everything from mobile/desktop/server Operating Systems, to search engines and webserver software, and the demand for performance.
Comment

Pro
 Teaches problem solving

The great STL is the most powerful Data Structure and Algorithms Library. It would benefit you very much in problem solving, your main main way to love programming. The code is much compact compared to Java and C#. No unnecessary classes are in your way; yet when you need classes they are available unlike C. The code runs very fast.
Comment

Pro
 Teaches fundamental OOP

Teaches you to leverage object oriented programming.
Comment

Con
 Bugs easily corrupt the memory you need to find them

You can usually get a core dump, but often the call stack gets completely overwritten. Compilers are not even consistent in how they map the binary objects to code.
Comment

Con
 No cross-platform dependency management

C++ doesn't come with a platform independent dependency management system like Maven for Java, Nuget for .net or Cargo for Rust. Most solutions are platform specific, like Nuget for Visual Studio. In Linux the package management system is often used for c/c++ dependency management. (apt-get build-dep ...)
Comment

Con
 Huge language gets in the way of learning

C++ is such an atrociously over-complicated language that its learning curve may get in the way of learning fundamentals. Learning C++ well is a ten-year project, and even experts are frequently surprised by the language.
Comment

Con
 Rather useless compiler errors

An error in C++ can be a result of many things, so often the compiler doesn't have very useful advice about just what the problem is. Sometimes this can feel like the error is "IT BROKE" and the solution advice is "FIX IT".
Comment

Pro
 Zero-cost abstractions

You can use somewhat high-level abstractions and still be quite sure that the code will run as fast as a low-level C implementation – not just in an asymptotic and/or average-throughput sense, but in fact exactly as fast and with no latency issues.
Comment

Con
 No two programmers can agree on which 10% subset of C++ to use

C++ is such a huge and complicated language, that programmers have to learn a disciplined subset of it to reliably get anything done. The problem is, no-one can agree on which subset to use and they can't understand each other.
Comment

Con
 Undefined behavior

Subtle errors can render the entire program "undefined" by the complicated C++ standard. The standard imposes no requirements in such cases. Thus C++ compiler writers are free to ignore the existence of such cases and Bad Things are prone to happen instead. Even experts can't reliably avoid undefined cases in C++, so how can beginners be expected to do so?
Comment

Con
 Tough to learn as the first language

Many of the concepts are hard to grasp if you have no prior programming experience.
Comment

Con
 Slow compilation

C++ is such a complicated language that compilers don't work very quickly.
Comment

Pro
 Supported by static analysis tools and safety standards

Comment

Con
 Separate header files

One has to duplicate e.g. object interface declaration in header files. Making some object member public is not enough to make it accessible for other cpp files. However the feature request for module support is high on the wishlist. This would solve this issue.
Comment

Con
 Module system is not great

C++ uses the #include mechanism provided by C. Which unfortunately is a poor way of accessing the API of a library. Some of the reasons why the module system is weak are: Compile time scalability: The compiler must preprocess every header included in a file, and every header included in those headers. This process must be repeated for every translation unit in the program. As can be imagined, this doesn't scale very well. For each header added you are increasing the compilation time exponentially. Fragile: modules included are treated as textual imports by the compiler. This causes all sorts of problems since they are subject to any macro definitions in the time of the inclusion. If any of these macro definitions collide with a name in the library it can break the library API .
Comment

Pro
 Has lots of library

C++ is mature and everything has standardized library.
Comment

Con
 Retains nearly all bad habits of C

Comment

Con
 A chaotic mingling of programming concepts

To give a similar picture: C++ does have more of a motor combustor, that is responsible to vaporize the gasoline. A bad principle corrected many times. At the end we have a complicated machinery that is a weird collection of a few genius ideas to make the whole thing work (templates (weird and a lot of history-driven pitfalls), now: lambdas (in a weird way), still a lot of exceptions in how compilers machinely set up the classes). Weird new rvalue mechanisms. Too much backward compatibility where all the old and erroneous stuff still exists, and the smart pointers emerge, and et cetera. Everything is just mingled together. And when you want to templatize your existing code, you have to start over from the beginning. Like Scott Myers said it: "C++ is a foundation of programming languages". Yes, a weird one. Result: your coding solutions do not scale. You do not know, where you end up in refactoring.
Comment

Pro
 STD is often updated

The functionalities keep growing throughout the years. C++11 gave us a soft type of garbage collecting with the smart pointers.
Comment

Pro
 Faster execution of the same algorithms

Because C++ (and its precursor C) are "lower level" than a lot of popular programming languages they are also faster at executing code than Java or C# which require VMs and garbage collection threads.
Comment

Pro
 Best way to understand algorithms

Comment

Con
 N different ways to do things -- most deprecated

C++ has retained every ancient feature in the name of compatibility. (Consider dynamic memory: malloc, then new, then smart_ptr, then unique_ptr and shared_ptr.) Which is great for old codebases, but now you're using libraries from every period that do things differently and lots of boilerplate are necessary to unify all of these.
Comment

Con
 After all these years of trying, still no decent string library

Although you have several ways to handle strings, all of them are messy and error-prone, giving birth to many crashes and memory corruptions in the field. It's one of the worst languages ever, if you have to do strings.
Comment

Con
 No reflection

C++ objects are frustratingly opaque. This makes debugging especially difficult, something beginners have to do a lot.
Comment

Pro
 Teaches low-level programming, but doesn't have as many pitfalls as C

Teaches data types, low-level program flow and the so common C-style syntax while not being as much of a pain as C itself.
Comment

Con
 Undefined behaviors and weak limited type safety

Undefined behavior in a program can cause unexpected results, making it hard to debug. With UB, program behavior may vary wildly depending on optimization settings. There are many cases that invoke UB, such as signed overflow, invalid dereferences, large integer shifts, uninitialized variables, etc. C++ allows for non-type safe operations such as logic errors, wild pointers, buffer overflow, etc. UB and type safety issues create a large number of bugs and security vulnerabilities.
Comment

Con
 C++ succumbs under its own weight

The years of cramped backward compatibility start to show in the syntax, complexity and very top-heavy language structures. Trying to keep up with far more elegant languages like C# doesn't do C++ any good either, because the committee always seems to be able to mess it up. After numerous years, still no modules... you must be kidding!
Comment

Pro
 Universal, portable, best complexity/efficiency trade-off

Comment

Con
 Memory leaks and segmentation faults

Because C and C++ allow the user direct access to memory and don't provide garbage collection threads, there is a probability that a program may have a "memory leak", which occurs when something a programmer allocated in the heap is not deallocated properly. Also, attempting to dereference memory protected by the operating system causes a segmentation fault and kills the program.
Comment

Con
 Complicated programs due to powerful template mechanism

Developers with advanced understanding of the template mechanism can create programs so arcane that they are hard to understand even for other professional c++ developers.
Comment

Con
 No way to locate definitions

No modules, just files, and no way to tell where anything came from.
Comment

Con
 Standard library missing important features

Comment

Con
 Incomprehensible operator overloading resoution

Comment

Con
 Duplicates C features in incompatible ways

Arrays, strings, pointers, etc. have both C and C++ versions. Sometimes the C++ versions are worse. This is more useless trivia beginners have to sort through.
Comment

Con
 Exceptions incompatible with C++ manual memory management

Comment

Con
 Arcane binding rules

Comment

Con
 Complicated types

Comment

Pro
 Universal, portable, best complexity/efficiency trade-off

Comment

Con
 Painfully slow compilation

Beginners need fast feedback.
Comment

Pro
 Multiplatform (Delphi, FreePascal)

Works on all major desktop and mobile OSes, and more.
Comment

Pro
 Strongly typed

Comment

Pro
 Clear syntax

The syntax is clear and concise, for example: procedure test(); begin DoSomething(); end;
Comment

Pro
 Cross-platform

Pascal development tools are available almost on every available platform, especially using Free Pascal. Pascal language is available on desktop like Mac, BSD, Linux, Windows, Solaris, etc.; on mobile like iOS, Android, etc.; also on managed environments like Java Virtual Machine (JVM) and .Net/Mono framework . There are even some Pascal to JavaScript transpilers such as Smart Pascal, so you can write client side web app using Pascal as well, if you really want to.
Comment

Pro
 Fast compilation

The compiler is fast, really fast. Compared to C/C++, the delphi compiler is designed to compile a decent sized desktop application in seconds rather than minutes.
Comment

Pro
 Easy GUI creation

Visual Basic may have predated Delphi but Delphi was the ground breaking visual designer which set the standards expected today by most GUI developers. Its rich component set was well designed, structured and extensible, it even has the ability to display live data from the attached database in its data controls.
Comment

Pro
 Rich existing libraries

Both shipped with implementations and spread all over the web. Both natively written or bindings to libraries written in other languages. Typically to build non-trivial applications there's no need to surf the web as many things are implemented already. Streaming, output templating, socket & networking, web, database, image manipulation, high performance graphics, (de)compression, (de|en)cryption, regex, unit testing, json manipulation, google API, indexing, multithreading, external process management, the list just goes on and on!
Comment

Pro
 Language depth

Object Pascal is being used to write custom kernels (Ultibo) and operating-systems for various ARM boards. So the way you work with the code scales from low-level to pure OOP high-level. Object Pascal has the same level of depth that you find in C/C++ but with added productivity.
Comment

Pro
 Fast execution

The compiler generates fast and optimized code. No stop-the-universe garbage collection.
Comment

Pro
 Understanding of basics

Because of the verbosity and easy syntax, Pascal language is relatively easier to be learned and understood, even for someone who has no programming knowledge. It's said that Pascal code —if written well— is like reading pseudo code. Pascal / Object pascal was also used in schools during the 2000s to teach kids the basics of object oriented programming.
Comment

Pro
 Enforces good programming practice

Numerous strong compile time checks with optional runtime checks ensure one doesn't do stupid things and even when one does (because the compiler can't prove it at compile time), the binary will check and report it at runtime. Correct modular programming implementation with proper namespacing, no file inclusion hack.
Comment

Pro
 Extensive third party libraries

There are large collections of third party components, many free which enable developers to add wide ranging and complex functionality to their code with ease.
Comment

Pro
 Reliable language and code base

Most code from the Turbo Pascal days in the 80s still compiles, yet the language has since been adapted and extended with modern concepts, introducing OOP and interfaces, exception handling, native Unicode support, anonymous methods, generics, ARC and more.
Comment

Pro
 Assembler Code and DLL/SO creation

You can put Assembler code in Intel or AT&T formats, to achieve great results of speed and accuracy. It is possible to create Dynamic Link Libraries or their equivalent in Unix-like systems so it's relatively easy to use and powerful.
Comment

Pro
 Flexible

Using the Free Pascal Compiler (the main Pascal distribution) you can code in a language that can be procedural and imperative now, but it can became object-oriented simply adding a directive at the start of the source.
Comment

Pro
 Incredible GUI design tools

Lazarus and Delphi are both incredible GUI design tools, making rapid development a reality. Making changes to a GUI doesn't mean switching tools or waiting for things to load, it's right there as part of your core tools.
Comment

Pro
 Available on a ridiculous number of platforms

FreePascal is available on/for Intel x86 (including 8086), AMD64/x86-64, PowerPC, PowerPC64, SPARC, ARM, AArch64, MIPS and the JVM. Supported operating systems include Linux, FreeBSD, Haiku, Mac OS X/iOS/iPhoneSimulator/Darwin, DOS (16 and 32 bit), Win32, Win64, WinCE, OS/2, MorphOS, Nintendo GBA, Nintendo DS, Nintendo Wii, Android, AIX and AROS.
Comment

Pro
 Clear, simple syntax, no hidden behaviors

Comment

Pro
 Tons of academic reading

Being known as the programming language for education, especially in the 90's, there many academic reading and tutorials available on the internet.
Comment

Pro
 Supports generics

Comment

Pro
 Exceptional retrocompatibility

Comment

Pro
 Well balanced for desktop development

For desktop development, Delphi is productive, the code is easy to understand, compilation speed is blazing, and it produces well performing applications that are easy to deploy. The perfect balance between C# and C++.
Comment

Pro
 Still active

From the early roots of Pascal, Delphi has been developed and is still actively supported. It is used in many desktop applications today, and even supports multi platform coding.
Comment

Pro
 Dynamic evolution of language

Comment

Con
 Niche language

Most use of this language will be found in jobs supporting legacy code. It will be hard to find things to do with this language outside of that niche.
Comment

Con
 No language standard

After the Wirth era, practically there is no official Pascal language standard. Delphi used to be the dé facto standard especially for industry, but today Free Pascal is starting to get better support. However, there are some other Pascal language variants such as Smart Pascal, Oxygene (from RemObjects), Pascal ABC, etc. that each has its own styles.
Comment

Con
 No up to date version of language standards

In 1983, the language was standardized, created two standards ISO/IEC 7185:1990 Pascal and ISO/IEC 10206:1990 Extended Pascal. Object Pascal extensions to the language are no official standards. Their are no standards for modern features and enhancements. Various Pascal dialects like Delphi or HP Pascal exist with their own enhancements and features.
Comment

Con
 All variables, types, constants and functions must be declared at the beginning of the code

Comment

Pro
 Supports reflection (Delphi)

Comment

Pro
 Supports anonymous methods (Delphi)

Comment

Pro
 Cross platform

Pascal development tools are available almost on every available platform, especially using Free Pascal. Pascal language is available on desktop like Mac, BSD, Linux, Windows, Solaris, etc.; on mobile like iOS, Android, etc.; also on managed environments like Java Virtual Machine (JVM) and .Net/Mono framework . There are even some Pascal to JavaScript transpilers such as Smart Pascal, so you can write client side web app using Pascal as well, if you really want to.
Comment

Pro
 Easy

Pascal / Object pascal was used in schools during the 2000s to teach kids the basics of object oriented programming.
Comment

Pro
 Encourages functional style

It steers you towards a functional style, but doesn't bother you with purity and "monads everywhere" like other languages, such as Haskell.
Comment

Pro
 Actively-developed functional programming language at the forefront of research

Functional programming is based on the lambda calculus. OCaml is in its functional parts almost pure lambda calculus, in a very practical manner: useful for many daily programming tasks. The acitve development makes improvements to the type system like generalized algebraic data types (GADT) or polymorphic variants, so when learning this language you get at once a down to earth usable compiler and advanced abstraction features.
Comment

Pro
 Stable syntax

The syntax is consistent, some syntaxic sugar but at a reasonable level, so reading code of others isn't too much confusing.
Comment

Con
 Strong focus on *nix systems, lacking native support for MS Windows

Lacks native support for Windows systems.
Comment

Pro
 Very capable type system helps avoid errors

The very strong yet flexible (you do not actually write the types, the compiler determines them) helps to prevent type related errors.
Comment

Pro
 Very fast compiled code

Almost in the C league (might in the end depend on the subject).
Comment

Pro
 One of the best for writing compilers

OCaml is compiled to native binary, so it's amazingly fast. Being a member of ML-family languages, it has expressive syntax for trees, and has great LLVM support.
Comment

Pro
 Sophisticated and easy-to-use package manager

OPAM is a package manager for OCaml, which is really easy to use, just like npm. It creates a .opam folder in home directory. The documentation is great as well, and you can switch between multiple versions of OCaml for each project. You can also package your project and publish it on OPAM repositories, even if the dependencies do not exists on OPAM.
Comment

Pro
 Practical multi paradigm language

Ocaml is a functional language in first place but also supports an pragmatic imperative programming style (for..loops, etc) and objects.
Comment

Pro
 Strong editor integration

The merlin editor tool provides all you need to develop OCaml in your favourite editor.
Comment

Pro
 Flexible, does not force you to a particular paradigm

Common Lisp can be a very flexible language. You can either follow functional paradigms and rules or you can go the imperative route. You can also use OOP because of the powerful Common Lisp Object System (CLOS).
Comment

Pro
 Almost as fast as, or faster than, C

Some compilers such as SBCL can be faster than C or other low-level languages, and most compilers can generate fast native code.
Comment

Pro
 Software written in Common Lisp can exceed C/C++ performance

Some CL implementations (most notably SBCL) with some careful design can surpass even C/C++ code in production when it comes to efficiency and speed.
Comment

Pro
 Portable

Common Lisp is very portable across multiple platforms. With a myriad of implementations available.
Comment

Pro
 Lots of production-ready libraries available

Common Lisp is arguably the most useful Lisp to "get things done". One of the main reasons of this is the large community behind it and the large number of libraries and frameworks already built to solve virtually any problem you may have when writing programs to be used by actual users.
Comment

Pro
 Carefully designed for interactive use

Almost all aspects of the language are designed with interactive/repl use in mind.
Comment

Con
 Too many implementations

There are a lot of Common Lisp implementations out there (CLisp, SBCL, CCL, just to name a few). Some implementations are free and open source, others are proprietary and cost quite a bit. Though none of them follow 100% the Common Lisp standard for example, SBCL fails about 50 official ANSI Common Lisp conformance tests. Having so many implementations it may be hard to develop new libraries because you would have to test it for several different implementations.
Comment

Con
 Academic language, snobbish following

Not geared towards mainstream use.
Comment

Con
 Esoteric syntax

While functional, the syntax isn't the easiest to pickup for most coders.
Comment

Pro
 Very Powerful REPL with SLIME

SLIME (Superior Lisp Interaction Mode for Emacs).
Comment

Pro
 Condition/restart system

It is easy to recover from errors. Error resolution can be determined by the user at the REPL.
Comment

Pro
 Built-in support for concurrency

Red has built-in support for concurrency and multi-core CPUs.
Comment

Con
 Doesn't work on 64-bit OSes

Still hasn't upgraded to be 64-bit OS compatible.
Comment

Con
 Not ready for production

Red is still on version 0.6.0. Which means that it still has some way to go before being used in production and in large projects.
Comment

Con
 No Windows version

But it does run on Cygwin.
Comment

Pro
 Safe concurrency

ATS can prove its concurrent programs have no deadlocks or race conditions.
Comment

Pro
 Good module system

Similar to Modula-3. This makes ATS a viable choice even for large-scale projects.
Comment

Pro
 High-performance systems language

ATS works as a low-level systems language. ATS programs have performance and footprint comparable to programs written in C/C++.
Comment

Pro
 Functional programming

The syntax is ML-like with the usual functional language features like pattern matching and tail-call optimization.
Comment

Pro
 Free and open-source compiler

The compiler (ATS/Postiats) is GPLv3.
Comment

Pro
 Built-in formal specification

ATS has a theorem-proving type system powerful enough to prove that its functions meet their specifications. This happens at compile time with no performance impact at runtime. This can be used to prove that an ATS program doesn't have bugs commonly found in C++ programs, like "this function never leaks memory" or "this program never attempts to divide by zero" or "this buffer never overflows" or to verify pointer arithmetic, etc.
Comment

Con
 A very naïve approach to the real problem

Vala just adds more complexity to the game. No real benefits in using a 'programming language emulator' for UI code, you may think it adds to productivity but it's just a way to make the problem last longer, reinventing the wheel everytime and worse.
Comment

Con
 Not well documented

Comment

Con
 Very limited tooling

Though using Gnome Builder, you can debug it easily.
Comment

Con
 Not a general purpose language

Can't use Vala in multiple software development areas.
Comment

Pro
 C compatible API (and ABI)

C programs can use libraries written in Vala, and vice versa.
Comment

Pro
 A general purpose language

Vala is compiled to C and only requires GLib - or even nothing (posix profile).
Comment

Pro
 Stable ABI

You can write a library with ABI stability.
Comment

Pro
 Easy syntax

Vala is syntactically similar to C# and includes several features such as: anonymous functions, signals, properties, generics, assisted memory management, exception handling, type inference, and foreach statements.
Comment

Pro
 Well-integrated with C language

Vala itself is compiled to C, therefore it can use the vast ecosystem of C language, with least effort.
Comment

Pro
 Fast

Underneath there is C. It makes some stuff easier to write than it would be with plain C code.
Comment

Pro
 Designed for parallel processing

Can evaluate subexpressions in parallel.
Comment

Pro
 No garbage-collected global heap

Memory management is region-based.
Comment

Pro
 No globals

Comment

Pro
 Has both an interpreter and a compiler

Comment

Pro
 Race conditions detected at compile time

Comment

Pro
 Concurrency model based on actors

The unique type system allows the compiler to automatically schedule actors on threads, giving you reliable concurrency for free.
Comment

Pro
 High performance

Compiles to native code, and features an intelligent garbage collector that takes advantage of the actor architecture to get essentially free garbage collection.
Comment

Pro
 Trivially simple C FFI

Calling low-level C functions is as simple as use "lib:clibrary" and @c_function_name[return_type](parameter:type). Linking C to Pony libraries is just as easy, as the Pony compiler will generate appropriate header files.
Comment

Pro
 Reliable

Because of its capabilities a secure type system, provided you don't use the C FFI, references will never be stale, race conditions are effectively impossible, deadlocks don't happen because locks and mutexes are never needed, and processes never crash because all exceptions must be handled (barring compiler bugs or external memory corruption). Pony programs can still lock up due to infinite loops, like any Turing-complete language.
Comment

Con
 Unstable API

Pony is not ready for production. It has yet to release version 1.0, and there are frequent breaking changes.
Comment

Con
 Limited tooling

There's no IDE. Debuggers are fairly basic. Pony is too young to have much of an ecosystem.
Comment

Con
 Few libraries

Comment

Pro
 Full dependent types

Idris not only has support for type classes, but is a fully dependently typed language, giving you the full power to statically verify your code.
Comment

Con
 Different semantics from Haskell

Idris, while similar to Haskell, has strict semantics, which may cause some confusion if your backend is done in Haskell. If using Idris, it would make sense to do the backend in Idris as well, if not for the fact that Idris currently has fewer libraries available for web development than Haskell.
Comment

Con
 Not widely used

Comment

Pro
 Domain driven design and type driven development

Because of full dependent types in Idris, the programmer can focus more on modelling the domain with types and waste less time fixing common bugs that the type checker will catch. Dependent types help apply type driven development and a lot of code auto generation, making the compiler and type checker an ally in developing working software instead of just getting in the way.
Comment

Con
 Weaker type inference

As type inference is undecidable for dependently-typed languages, Idris cannot offer the full type inference that Haskell supports, and so more type annotations will be needed.
Comment

Pro
 Easy and with great potential

Easy of python with small microcontrollers.
Comment

Con
 Toy language

Comment

Pro
 Fastest growing language in the world

Comment

Pro
 Widely speaked

Comment

Pro
 Lots of tutorials

Lots of tutorials, entertainment and media usage make this one of the easiest languages to learn
Comment

Pro
 The fastest information rate density among all languages

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-fastest-language-in-the-world
Comment

Pro
 Verbosity

It makes it easy to debug and to read code.
Comment

Pro
 Type-safe

It is easier to catch errors sooner.
Comment

Pro
 Mature ecosystem

The language and all its tools have enough time to age and they've aged well.
Comment

Pro
 Low number of logical errors brought in by built-in type annotations

TypeScript's built-in type signatures allow developers to fully document interfaces and make sure that they will be correctly compiled. Therefore, cutting down on logical errors.
Comment

Pro
 Works well with Angular 2

Angular 2 is built using TypeScript and applications built using it can make use of that (or not).
Comment

Pro
 Compiles to very native looking code

Compiles to simple looking Javascript making it easy to understand what is happening and learn the language (if you already know Javascript).
Comment

Pro
 Great support for editors (Sublime, Code, Vim, IntelliJ...)

Comment

Pro
 First party Visual Studio support

As a Microsoft developed project, it has first party Visual Studio support that's on par with its C# support with features like syntax sensitive statement completion.
Comment

Pro
 Clear roadmap

TypeScript has a clear and defined roadmap with rapid and constant releases.
Comment

Pro
 Great support for React, integrated typed JSX parsing

Strongly typed react components, so UI "templating" automatically gains type safety.
Comment

Pro
 Ability to do functional programming

Comment

Pro
 Strict superset of Javascript

Every existing Javascript program is already a valid TypeScript program giving it the best support for existing libraries, which is particularly useful if you need to integrate with an existing Javascript code base.
Comment

Pro
 Works well with existing Javascript code

Both can call Javascript code and be called by Javascript code. Making transitioning to the language very easy.
Comment

Pro
 Has a repository of high quality TypeScript type definitions for popular libraries

There are many ready to use and high quality TypeScript definitions for popular libraries including jquery, angular, bootstrap, d3, lodash and many-many more.
Comment

Pro
 Adds support for object-oriented programming

Typescript enables familiar object-oriented programming patterns: classes, inheritance, public/private methods and properties, et cetera.
Comment

Pro
 Optional static typing

Typescript has optional static typing with support for interfaces and generics, and intelligent type inference. It makes refactoring large codebases a breeze, and provides many more safeguards for creating stable code.
Comment

Pro
 Built and supported by Microsoft

Being built by Microsoft, TypeScript is much more likely than most other similar open-source projects to receive continued long-term support, good documentation, and a steady stream of development.
Comment

Pro
 Polyfill for ES6 fat-arrow syntax

Typescript implements the fat arrow syntax, which always maintains the current context for this and is a shorter/more convenient syntax than traditional function definition.
Comment

Pro
 Strong typed language

Lot of benefits of it, you can read this.
Comment

Con
 No Java-like package structure

If you prefer a Java-like approach of partitioning your code into different packages, the module system of typescript will confuse you.
Comment

Con
 Type checking not enforced by default

You have to use compiler flags to make sure it catches flaws like usage of implicit any, etc.
Comment

Con
 Slow compilation

Comment

Con
 Not Cross-platform

No official Windows support.
Comment

Con
 A language only Ruby fans can love

Ruby-ish language.
Comment

Pro
 Fast performance

Comment

Pro
 Elegant syntax as Ruby

Comment

Pro
 Compiles to native binary

Comment

Pro
 Easy to learn

Easy for beginners and easy implementation.
Comment

Pro
 Has co-routine

Comment

Con
 Deployment is still not as easy as it should be

Comment

Pro
 Scalability

Elixir programming is ideal for applications that have many users or are actively growing their audience. Elixir can easily cope with much traffic without extra costs for additional servers. More details can be found here.
Comment

Pro
 Easy to download libraries

Comes with built in build tool called "mix". This will automatically download libraries and put them in the scope of the application when you add them to the "deps" function and run mix deps.get
Comment

Pro
 Types don't get in the way

Gradual typing is a wonderful middle-ground for those who like dynamic languages but see the value of typing.
Comment

Pro
 Full access to Erlang functions

You can call Erlang functions directly without any overhead: https://elixir-lang.org/getting-started/erlang-libraries.html
Comment

Pro
 Powerful metaprogramming

Write code that writes code with Elixir macros. Macros make metaprogramming possible and define the language itself.
Comment

Pro
 Syntax is similar to Ruby, making it familiar for people used to OOP

All of the benefits of Erlang; without as steep a learning curve of prolog based syntax. Elixir is heavily inspired by Ruby's syntax which many people love.
Comment

Pro
 Great getting started tutorials

The tutorials are very clear and concise (even for a person not used to functional programming). Plus they are also very mobile friendly.
Comment

Pro
 Great for concurrency

Leverages the existing Erlang BEAM VM
Comment

Pro
 Great documentation

Elixir's documentation is very good. It covers everything and always helps solving any problem you may have. It's also always available from the terminal.
Comment

Con
 Some design choices may seem strange

Some design choices could have been a little more appealing, for example: using "do...end" comes natural in Ruby for blocks but Elixir uses them for everything and it looks pretty weird: Enum.map [1, 2, 3], fn(x) -> x * 2 end or receive do {:hello, msg} -> msg {:world, msg} -> "won't match" end
Comment

Pro
 Great standard library

Dart includes a truly comprehensive core library, making it unnecessary to include disparate, external resources for basic functionalities Other than reducing the need to pull in various 3rd-party utilities this also ensures that all Dart code looks and feels the same. Out of the box, the developer gets core libraries to help with: async, collections, strings, regexps, conversions, formats, file I/O, math, typed data, and more.
Comment

Pro
 Many platform targets

Dart targets the browser (after it's transpiled to JS), the server (Dart's VM can be run on Linux, Windows, OSX (Both on Intel and ARM architectures), Android and iOS (work in progress) and embedded systems via Dartino (support is experimental).
Comment

Con
 Slow development

Many features and tools of the language that were promised a long time ago have yet to be implemented raising concerns that these promises may never be fulfilled.
Comment

Pro
 A very clear well thought standard library

Out of the box, the developer gets core libraries to help with async, collections, strings, regexps, conversions, formats, file I/O, math, typed data, and more. This reduces the need to pull in various 3rd-party utilities and ensures that all Dart code looks and feels the same.
Comment

Pro
 Great async language support

Dart is a single threaded programming language. So if any piece of code blocks the execution of the program, the program practically freezes. To avoid this Dart makes use of asynchronous operations which let your program run without getting blocked. This is done through Future objects. A Future is an object which represent a means for getting a value at a certain point in the future. A function may invoke a Future and when that happens, two outcomes can be achieved: The function is unable to return a value, so it queues up work to be done and returns an uncompleted Future object. Or later when a value is available to be returned, the Future object completes with that value.
Comment

Con
 Small community, little momentum

Comment

Con
 Garbage collection

Impossible to realistically write a system that demands real time handling of events and deterministic behaviour when a garbage collection routine could run at any time. There are projects aimed to create such systems, i.e. Microsoft's Singularity OS, but they still rely on C, C++ and ASM to some degree.
Comment

Con
 Complex syntax

Too many syntactic constructs to learn before it becomes usable.
Comment

Con
 Lacks standard-library support for immutable data structures

Comment

Pro
 Easily process data from various sources

LINQ (Language Integrated Query) adds native querying capabilities to C# akin to SQL. You can write queries (either for objects or a DB) in the code and it'll get parsed by the compiler. It also allows to perform complex operations on any kind of collection.
Comment

Pro
 .NET library is extensive and easy to learn

Outside of the language itself, there is a really good library of objects to use for all common tasks. It's well written in a cross-platform way.
Comment

Pro
 Very high demand in the industry

Comment

Pro
 Awesome IDE for Windows

On Windows, Visual Studio is the recommended C# IDE. It provides a very flexible GUI that you can rearrange the way you want and many useful features such as refactorings (rename a variable, extract some code into a method, ...) and code formatting (you can pick exactly how you want the code to be formatted). Visual Studio also highlights your errors when you compile, making your debug sessions more efficient since you don't have to run the code to see the mistakes. There's also a powerful debugger that allows you to execute the code step-by-step and even change what part of the code will be executed next. In addition to giving you all the line-by-line information you'll need in a hassle-free manner, Visual Studio has stuff you can click on in the errors window that will take you to the documentation for that error, saving you several minutes of web searching. In addition to all of this, Visual Studio has an intuitive, intelligent, and helpful graphical user interface designer that generates code for you (the best of WYSIWYG, in my opinion), which is helpful for new programmers. Being able to create a fantastic-looking UI with one's mouse and then optionally tweak with code helps make programming fun for beginner developers. Visual Studio also has the best code completion --Intellisense is every bit as intelligent as the name says it is. It, as well as VS's parameter hinting, is context-, type-, user-, and position-sensitive, and displays relevant completions in a perfectly convenient yet understandable order. This feature allows a new programmer to answer the questions "What does this do?" and "How do I use it?" right then and there rather than having to switch to a browser to read through extensive documentation. This allows the programmer to satisfy their curiosity before it is snuffed out by several minutes of struggling through exhaustive documentation. And for the more adventurous and text-ready developer, Microsoft does the best job of ensuring that everything, from interfaces and wildcard types down to Console.WriteLine("") and the + operator, is well-documented and easy to understand, with relevant and well-explained usage examples that manage to be bite-size yet complete, simple yet truly helpful. The reference site is easy to navigate, well-organized, clean and uncluttered, up-to-date, and fresh and enjoyable to look at, and every page is well-written with consideration for readers who are not C# experts yet want to read about changing the console background color. The best part? It's free! Visual C# Express contains all of the features described above, at zero cost. If you are a student, you can probably get Visual Studio Professional from your university, which also includes tools for unit testing and supports plugins.
Comment

Pro
 Incredibly well-engineered language

Where other languages invoke the feeling of being a product of organic growth over time, C# just feels like an incredibly well-designed language where everything has its purpose and almost nothing is non-essential.
Comment

Pro
 .NET code can run on many platforms

It's not compiled natively but pre-compiled, and the same pre-compiled code can run on many platforms.
Comment

Pro
 Class properties

Comment

Pro
 Built-in support for events and delegates

Comment

Con
 Often-used products in most C# development environments get expensive

The majority of the C# development community uses Microsoft products which are not all free and open-source. As you get into the enterprise level of some of these products and subscriptions, the expense is multiple factors of 10 greater. While you can use a fully open-source and free C# environment, the community around that is much smaller. While this can be said for other languages as well, the majority of C# falls into the for-pay Microsoft realm.
Comment

Con
 Too easy to write multithreading apps that are buggy

Many web frameworks or GUI libraries will push novice users to writing multithreaded code, which leads to frustrating race condition bugs. Other languages with multithreading push users towards safe constructs, like passing messages and immutable or synchronized containers. But in C# the data structures aren't synchronized by default, and it's too easy to just set a field and observe the result from another thread (until you compile with Release, and now you have a heisenbug).
Comment

Con
 Dependecy on IDE

Most people learn and depend on VisualStudio to write C#. The result is people learn how to use an IDE and not the concepts or fundamentals of good programming. This isn't necessarily a knock on the language itself, but it is frustratingly difficult to do things in C# when not using VS.
Comment

Pro
 Good garbage collector (Windows)

At least on Windows the .NET GC works in the background and is really efficient.
Comment

Pro
 Supports structures and HEAP

You don't have to use garbage collected objects, you can use the HEAP with structures that are treated as value.
Comment

Pro
 .NET is a great toolbox

C# runs on top of the .NET framework, which provides many libraries containing classes used for common tasks such as connecting to the Internet, displaying a window or editing files. Unlike many other languages, you don't have to pick between a handful of libraries for every small task you want to do.
Comment

Pro
 Incredibly Well-Engineered Language

Where other languages invoke the feeling of being a product of organic growth over time, C# just feels like an incredibly well-designed language where everything has its purpose and almost nothing is non-essential.
Comment

Pro
 Great introduction to object-oriented programming

Object-oriented programming is the most widely-used paradigm. C# offers support for common OOP features such as classes, methods and fields, plus some features not found in competing languages like properties, events and static classes. C# code is much more readable thanks to the syntactic sugar it offers. You can truly concentrate on your code, not on the way it's implemented.
Comment

Pro
 Very high demand in the industry.

C#'s been around for just the right amount of time, is regularly updated with useful additions, is versatile, easy to write & read, & has excellent tooling support. This means it is a top choice for many organisations & will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Comment

Pro
 Best language for Windows programs

C# is clearly the best choice for Windows programs. The .NET framework contains everything you need to build great-looking apps, without having to learn the confusing Win32 API or download a ton of external libraries. C# can also be used to build Windows 8's "modern" apps.
Comment

Pro
 Supported on many platforms

C# can be used for Windows apps, Linux apps, OS X apps, Windows 8 "modern" apps, websites, games, iPhone apps, Android apps, Windows Phone apps, and more. If you want to create a cross-platform application, you can share most of the code and write one GUI for each platform.
Comment

Pro
 Can mix high and low level programming

You can code at the high level without worrying about pointers and memory management, but if you so choose you can switch to lower level programming with direct memory management and pointer manipulation (though you need to compile to specifically allow this).
Comment

Pro
 With ASP CORE a good language to learn

With CORE you are no longer just limited to Windows, so a language worth learning.
Comment

Pro
 Supports some functional features

C# is primarily object-oriented, but it also supports some features typically found in functional languages such as lambdas, delegates and anonymous classes. Methods can be treated like any other object, and the Linq query system operates on monads with lazy evaluation (though it hides this with a lot of syntactic sugar). You don't need to use these features to code in C#, though, so you can start with OOP and then learn about them.
Comment

Pro
 Great language for Unity game engine

Unity provides a selection of programming languages depending on preference or knowledge - C#, JS, Boo and UnityScript. C# is arguably the most powerful with better syntax and stronger language structure. It allows using script files without attaching them to any game object (classes, methods inside unattached scripts that can be used at any time). There are more tutorials and information for C# than UnityScript and Visual Studio can be used to code for unity in C#. Additionally, learning C# allows using it outside of Unity as well unlike UnityScript.
Comment

Pro
 .NET truly universal

With .NET core it is a truly universal programming language which support desktop apps (Windows), Mobile apps (Xamarin), Web Apps (ASP.Core MVC). Also is perfectly fit to serverless programming for micro services. Soon it will be also support Web assembly (Blazor).
Comment

Pro
 Awesome IDE for cross-platform development

Visual studio has embraced cross platform development over the past 3 years. With Visual Studio Code, you now have a light, and quick IDE variant available for free as well.
Comment

Pro
 Systems Language

Faster like Ocaml and faster than Swift. There is a system made in C#: https://github.com/CosmosOS/Cosmos
Comment

Pro
 Standalone executables

Can create single file executables.
Comment

Con
 Limited free version

Free version is limited to 800 lines and can not create DLL's.
Comment

Con
 Slightly bogged syntax

Sometimes the syntax bogs down, just a little with long procedure names and such. A truly minor issue.
Comment

Con
 Not really a systems programming language

Apple created this programming language to help software engineers develops apps.
Comment

Con
 Too Apple Centric

Way too much about Apple, less about being truly cross-platform.
Comment

Pro
 Sensible language constructs

Swift developers have made the syntax easier for programming simple constructs such as equality and assignment. Many experts call this "syntactic sugar" but in this case, the proof is in the pudding.
Comment

Con
 Swift is a moving target

They've released 1.2 so far, and 2.0 is coming soon. Every small update brings adjustments to paradigms (such as how to do type casting) that can be a little frustrating to absorb. Objective C was also constantly updating, however, but not at the same rate these days.
Comment

Pro
 The multiverse is programmed in Math

Comment

Pro
 Scripted

You don't need to compile (even though some pre-compiler exist). This allows you to keep the source code and directly run it making it ideal for any kind of script.
Comment

Pro
 Indented code

You don't need curly braces { ... } or end if style blocks, and also no ; at the end of lines. Python uses indentation and line breaks instead, making the code more readable.
Comment

Con
 Slow, too many abstractions

Python is a language only for noobs or data scientists. It is very slow, has too many abstractions, cannot (cross) compile it to an executable.
Comment

Pro
 Broadly available

Python is available on most platforms and frequently even pre-installed.
Comment

Pro
 Golang is a Systems Programming Language !!

https://www.quora.com/Is-Go-a-systems-programming-language
Comment

Pro
 Objects are dynamic

Objects can be manipulated even after they've been created, thanks to the "slots" having such flexibility.
Comment

Pro
 Simple to understand

There are only 3 types of data in PicoLisp - numbers, symbols, and lists. This makes it less confusing than other systems programming languages that have other types in addition to these.
Comment
undefinedurl nextprice drop