Your bias is your own problem. There's clearly a solution that allows you to use snake_case and those that potentially import your library to seamlessly use all exports as camelCase, yet you're still bothered by that. It's nonsensical, Nim literally came up with the absolute most elegant solution to this.

Nope. Its solution is "we made things uglier therefore you can mangle them in a way you like".

Strong convention is much better than pleasure of everyone.

> we made things uglier

That's unfounded, please try it at least once in the playground play.nim-lang.org/. To me it's very cool that wrapped C libs with identifiers like ATOMIC_RELEASE can be written as AtomicRelease without any trouble.

I get what you're at with the multiple ways to do stuff, but in Nim it actually makes it more consistent (imo).

If my codebase enforces camelCase and a library uses snake_case, then I can still use that library using camelCase, and Nim has nimgrep to make this easier all the way.

--styleCheck:on to enforce the style every identifier is declared in your code base.

Me too. I do a lot of grepping on codebases and this seems like it could bite me at some point. But it is a very interesting approach to solving the naming convention problem.

> I'm also biased against languages that allow you to do the same thing in multiple ways

So you oppose languages supporting both recursion and iteration?

recursion vs. iteration, inheritance vs. composition, interfaces vs. abstract classes, etc. are design choices that depend on the problem being solved. Language syntax is different; it's an opinion of the language designer which gives the language its distinctive style, and IMO shouldn't have much leeway in expressing the same thing in multiple ways. It's what gives the language its identity.

For example, here's how you can iterate over a list in scala to print each element:

    List(1, 2, 3).foreach(element => println(element))
    List(1, 2, 3) foreach { element => println(element) }
    List(1, 2, 3).foreach(println(_))
    List(1, 2, 3).foreach { println(_) }
    List(1, 2, 3).foreach { println _ }
    List(1, 2, 3).foreach(println)
    List(1, 2, 3) foreach (println)
    List(1, 2, 3) foreach { println }
    List(1, 2, 3) foreach println

I'm having trouble contrasting that to the many ways I can add 2 and 3, and this doesn't bother me:

    x = 2 + 3
    x = 3 + 2
    x = (2 + 3)
    x = (3 + 2)
    x = 2; x += 3
    x = 3; x += 2
    x = 2; x = x + 3
    x = 3; x = x + 2

> Recursion and inheritance are interchangeable (in fact, either can be implemented as syntax sugar over the other)

Did you mean Recursion and Iteration?

Some recursion could be translated into iteration only if there is stack managed by hands. It decreases readability significantly.

Simplest example: Ackermann function.

And it works both way: some algorithms are better read as iteration.