Critique to my struggles using nim-to-js for a web project

I had previously written an article on my struggles using nim-to-js compilation for web projects but reading it some time later felt the need to critique it as it wasn’t clear about some things.

1. “Limited Documentation and Community Support”

You mention that the lack of comprehensive documentation and community support was one of the major struggles you faced with nim-to-js. While this is a valid point, I would argue that the Nim ecosystem, particularly for web development, is still young, but it’s growing.

Counterpoint:

• Nim is not as widely used in web development as JavaScript or even TypeScript, so it’s natural that the community and documentation are not as mature. However, the fact that Nim has excellent general-purpose documentation and is rapidly expanding its community-driven resources could be seen as a positive. Nim has a relatively active community on forums like Reddit and its GitHub discussions, where questions around nim-to-js are often answered. For instance, the nim subreddit has a growing group of people experimenting with web technologies.
• You could argue that Nim’s ecosystem is nascent but evolving, and expecting comprehensive documentation for a niche use case like nim-to-js is a bit premature. The toolchain could improve significantly over time with contributions from more developers interested in using Nim for the web.

Challenge: Could your expectations for documentation and support be aligned with the fact that Nim is still in a developmental phase for web applications, and the community is just beginning to explore this area?

---

2. “JavaScript Interoperability Issues”

You highlight problems with interoperability when trying to integrate Nim with JavaScript frameworks like React and Vue.js, particularly with React’s virtual DOM and component architecture. This is a fair concern, but I would challenge whether it’s the fault of Nim itself or more a matter of transpilation and bridging two different paradigms.

Counterpoint:

• React (and similarly, Vue.js) heavily rely on declarative, component-based architectures, which are inherently JavaScript-centric. Transpiling Nim to JavaScript is always going to result in some loss of the abstraction layers that React or Vue.js depend on. This could be seen less as a failure of nim-to-js and more as a fundamental incompatibility between how Nim and JavaScript handle UI updates and reactivity.
• React or Vue.js may not be ideal targets for a language like Nim that doesn’t inherently follow the same declarative pattern. If you’re trying to leverage frameworks that are highly opinionated, using Nim might not be the most suitable choice. For instance, JavaScript’s reactivity model (via hooks in React) might conflict with Nim’s imperative nature.

Challenge: Could it be that using nim-to-js with highly opinionated frameworks like React or Vue was the wrong choice in the first place? Should the problem be seen more as a misalignment between paradigms rather than a specific issue with Nim?

---

3. “Tooling and Build Process”

You mention challenges with the build pipeline and integration of nim-to-js into larger web projects, especially when compared to established ecosystems like Webpack and Babel. I agree that Nim’s web toolchain isn’t as polished as JavaScript’s, but I think there’s a deeper issue to consider here: The problem may not be with Nim, but rather the approach you’re taking.

Counterpoint:

• Nim’s build system is actually quite robust for native applications and can be adapted for JavaScript development. However, you may have run into issues due to early adoption or a lack of proper configuration rather than fundamental flaws in nim-to-js. Webpack, Babel, and NPM exist because they are necessary in JavaScript—due to the dynamic and fragmented nature of the JavaScript ecosystem. Since Nim compiles directly to JavaScript, some of the tooling issues are simply due to the need for better bridges between Nim’s tooling and the established JavaScript ecosystem.
• Nim’s use case in web development is still less defined compared to the well-established JavaScript toolchain, and using JavaScript-centric build tools like Webpack might not be the right approach. Instead, perhaps rethinking the build pipeline to better fit the Nim-JS ecosystem could alleviate some pain points. Tools like Parcel or esbuild, which are more agnostic in terms of language source, might be more appropriate.

Challenge: Could the difficulty you had in the build process be tied to trying to fit Nim into existing JavaScript-centric tools rather than adapting the process to suit Nim’s unique compilation model?

---

4. “Performance and Compatibility Issues”

You argue that Nim-generated JavaScript didn’t perform as well as you expected, with larger bundle sizes and slower execution than equivalent JavaScript code. This is a valid concern, but I would argue that the performance issues you encountered are partly due to the nature of the transpilation process.

Counterpoint:

• The performance of transpiled code will always suffer compared to native code. Nim to JavaScript is a transpilation, not a native compilation, meaning that there will be an inherent performance overhead. However, it’s worth noting that Nim is designed for performance in native code, so expecting the same level of efficiency in JavaScript might be unrealistic. JavaScript has its own runtime optimizations (like V8’s Just-in-Time (JIT) compiler) that won’t necessarily align with the optimizations Nim takes advantage of when compiling to machine code.
• There are compiler flags and optimizations available in Nim that can potentially minimize the bloat and improve the efficiency of the transpiled JavaScript. For example, you can use the --opt:speed flag to enable performance-focused optimizations during the compilation. It may be worth exploring whether the build process can be optimized or configured to minimize the inefficiencies in the transpiled JavaScript code.

Challenge: Could the performance issues you faced be mitigated by using Nim’s advanced optimization options during transpilation? And might you have expected too much in terms of raw performance from transpiled code when Nim excels in native applications?

---

5. “Limited Library Support”

You mention that third-party libraries and frameworks for Nim in the web development space are limited. While this is certainly true, it might be more about the niche use case rather than a fundamental problem with the language or the transpiler.

Counterpoint:

• This issue is common when using any non-mainstream language for web development. JavaScript, and to some extent TypeScript, have built up an enormous ecosystem over the years because they’ve been the dominant languages for web applications. Nim, being a relatively new and niche language, simply hasn’t had the time to establish such a vast array of web-specific libraries.
• Nim’s strengths lie in system programming, and its utility in web development is still being explored. For many tasks, you can still use JavaScript libraries and integrate them with Nim via interop. The lack of Nim-specific web libraries might actually be an opportunity for the community to build this ecosystem, rather than a downside.

Challenge: Is the lack of web-specific libraries a temporary gap that will eventually be filled as the Nim community grows, or is it more indicative of Nim’s niche position in the broader web development ecosystem?

---

Final Thoughts:

While the struggles you faced with nim-to-js are understandable, many of the issues could be part of the growing pains of using a relatively new language and toolchain. It’s also important to distinguish between problems stemming from Nim’s design (which may need to evolve) and how the language interacts with existing, well-established web technologies (which could just require more creative integration).

Your points about interoperability, tooling, and performance are valid, but they could benefit from more contextualizing—especially with regard to the early-stage nature of using Nim for web apps. Many of the challenges you encountered may have solutions that evolve as the Nim web ecosystem matures.

Would it be more fair to view these struggles not as failures of Nim, but as expected difficulties when introducing a lesser-known language to a highly mature domain like web development?