Here's a list of 7 typos and formatting problems I found in the book. (I finished reading it a couple days ago.)

[WraithGlade]

Hey Mr. Andreas Rumpf! I've got to say I'm super impressed by Nim and really think it is an underappreciated language! It's the closest to my ideal hypothetical language that I've been able to find yet! I was previous considering many other languages, including Rust, which was my favorite for a while (and still very impressive), but Nim has really won me over. I really hope that the language stays strong and continues growing and maturing! I'm really loving Nim so far and am excited to use it for my next project!

I also recently gave your book a 5 star review on Amazon too and put a lot of effort to try to communicate why Nim is so great and more people should give it attention. Hopefully that will help draw more people to it. Nim has really good pragmatic design.

Anyway though, I found some typos in the book. I tried posting them on the Nim forum Git page because the Nim forum system won't send me any confirmation emails for accounts no matter what I do and this seems to be a common long-term problem for that forum. You guys should really fix that soon, because it might be losing you a bunch of potential users in the wake of your latest book release. In any case, someone there told me to come here to submit these typos and other issues I found to you, and so here I am.

Here's the list of typos and formatting problems:

1. back cover: The last couple paragraphs of the back cover of the book are missing newlines, causing them to appear cramped and hence hard to read and sloppy/unprofessional looking. First impressions matter, so it's important to make the book cover look more professional if you want more people to buy it and to adopt the language. Don't underestimate the huge impact of seemingly "trivial" things like that!
2. page 23: "we could easily defined them ourselves" should be "we could easily define them ourselves"
3. page 57: "you are not supposed to learn the rules by hard" should be "you are not supposed to learn the rules by heart"
4. page 207 near bottom: proc =destroy[T](f: var Foo[T]) has incorrect syntax highlighting and a misplaced backtick
5. page 218 down 70%: "Let p the proc that is analyzed" should be "Let p be the proc that is analyzed"
6. page 223 near middle: "to rise the level of abstraction" should be "to raise the level of abstraction"
7. page 240 down 20%: "and contains the information if the parse was successful" should be "and is true if the parse was successful")

I hope that helps. I've been searching for a language that fits what I want for years and Nim is the closest yet. I really want to see it succeed, so I made extra effort when reading the book to find as many errors as I could. I also signed up for monthly donations (small for now, since I'm still just starting to use it) on the languages donation system, to help the language's chances.

I still really strongly suggest that you guys hire a professional book cover designer and have the cover of this book redone. Seemingly surface-level details like that often linger and can make or break the public image of a product and can create domino effects of what impression it creates. Having a uniformly professional-looking front to all aspects of how you communicate Nim will help create a much better impression that will amplify how likely people are to consider it and to adopt it. It seems like a truly wonderful language!

Anyway though, have a great day/night/week/etc! I'm really impressed by what you guys have done with Nim and really looking forward to using it! It feels like the best new generation language overall so far. It has so much less syntax noise than many of the others and just feels so much more breezy! 🙂

[dlesnoff]

Just one another typo p.14 : "If we use two points do define a line" -> to

[narimiran]

page 23: "we could easily defined them ourselves" should be "we could easily define them ourselves" page 57: "you are not supposed to learn the rules by hard" should be "you are not supposed to learn the rules by heart" page 218 down 70%: "Let p the proc that is analyzed" should be "Let p be the proc that is analyzed" page 223 near middle: "to rise the level of abstraction" should be "to raise the level of abstraction"

.14 : "If we use two points do define a line" -> to

These are now fixed and will be available in the next release.