Nim sacrifices a lot. It&#x27;s garbage collected with a non-thread-safe GC (last I checked). It has undefined behavior, which makes me not confident that people won&#x27;t discover security problems. It wouldn&#x27;t be suitable for the project I&#x27;m working on, which has to be as fast as it would be if it were written in C++, free of GC overhead (which does not just consist of pauses), and absolutely memory safe. (That doesn&#x27;t mean I wouldn&#x27;t use it for other projects.)<p>Fixing these issues in Nim would make it much more like Rust. In particular, it would have all the cognitive overhead you&#x27;re criticizing Rust for.<p>If you want to show that it&#x27;s possible to achieve all of the use cases of Rust without the cognitive overhead, just citing Nim won&#x27;t cut it. You need to (a) explain how to do memory safety without garbage collection (reference counting being, of course, a form of GC) <i>without</i> introducing new concepts like Rust does, (b) explain why everyone who thinks they can&#x27;t afford GC is wrong, or (c) explain why memory safety isn&#x27;t important even for security-critical software. I don&#x27;t think (a) is possible, and I don&#x27;t think (b) or (c) are correct.