[HN Gopher] Powerful, Open-Source, Programmatic CAD
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Powerful, Open-Source, Programmatic CAD
        
       Author : omeid2
       Score  : 105 points
       Date   : 2024-09-15 04:02 UTC (18 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.implicitcad.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.implicitcad.org)
        
       | dvh wrote:
       | Not in Ubuntu repository
        
       | DidYaWipe wrote:
       | "Bet your expecting"
       | 
       | After that I'm not expecting much.
        
       | Zopieux wrote:
       | Every time this is posted I look at the "API reference" which
       | sadly is severely lacking. Perhaps the software is actually
       | limited to just a few primitives.
        
         | omeid2 wrote:
         | The readme is much better, but generally, this kind of CAD is a
         | bit like OpenGL, very few primitives to create crazy staff.
         | 
         | Also, it is written in Haskell, so maybe there is finally some
         | other useful project in Haskell other than the Haskell
         | Compiler, as the joke goes.
         | 
         | https://github.com/Haskell-Things/ImplicitCAD
        
       | tempodox wrote:
       | Or you can download OpenSCAD.
       | 
       | https://openscad.org
        
         | mkl wrote:
         | But see the current OpenSCAD thread for plenty of reasons you
         | might not want to, and for alternatives:
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41543386
        
         | naasking wrote:
         | ImplicitCAD is more powerful than OpenSCAD. See the FAQ:
         | 
         | https://www.implicitcad.org/docs/faq
        
       | bmicraft wrote:
       | Okay so this is a from-the-ground-up rewrite of OpenSCAD with a
       | couple of bonus features?
        
       | mytwoscents wrote:
       | https://build123d.readthedocs.io/ is IMO a much better choice
       | than openscad and implicitcad. Describing your objects in Python
       | is just how things should be (at least for me ;)
        
         | ValentinA23 wrote:
         | Writing a transpiler targeting OpenScad is trivial, at least
         | the part that is comparable to a markup language. Control flow,
         | arithmetic and datastructures can be handled one level above in
         | the transpiled language, because OpenScad never produces data -
         | you can't ask it to determine the volume of an union for
         | instance - so two way communication between your code and the
         | geometric engine is not an issue. Just like build123d it seems.
        
       | mdaniel wrote:
       | relevant top comment from the author in the prior submission:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249268
       | 
       | > Author here. Sorry, I abandoned this two or three years ago.
       | Please look at this in the context of a project done several
       | years ago and never completed.
       | 
       | > Honestly, I no longer believe ImplicitCAD was the right
       | approach to the problem, or that there's even as much of a
       | problem as I originally thought. In particular, the system
       | ImplicitCAD uses to represent objects, a variant of f-rep
       | (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_representation) has
       | issues.
        
         | naasking wrote:
         | The Wikipedia page doesn't really describe any issues, so I'm
         | not sure what they're supposed to be or if maybe they've been
         | resolved since that comment was written in 2015.
        
       | johnnyApplePRNG wrote:
       | So i have recently begun learning jewelry design using blender
       | since there are a lot of videos on it out there but i have this
       | sneaking suspicion i should be learning CAD instead... Thoughts?
        
         | Centigonal wrote:
         | They are both useful skillsets. CAD is nice when you want to
         | manufacture your end result, but you have to think more about
         | constraints and parameters up front.
        
           | Animats wrote:
           | It's really surface vs. volume representations. Blender,
           | Maya, and most 3D graphics programs, define surfaces. Modern
           | 3D CAD programs such as FreeCAD, Fusion, and SolidWorks use
           | constructive solid geometry, where everything is a volume.
           | There are exceptions - SketchUp was a constructive solid
           | geometry program, and original AutoCAD was just lines.
           | 
           | The big difference comes when you combine objects or operate
           | on them. Surface-based programs are not that good at
           | combining surfaces. CSG-based programs have to be really good
           | at combining volumes, including subtracting from them. This
           | requires a very difficult geometry program underneath.
        
           | johnnyApplePRNG wrote:
           | It's mostly the cost aspect that is preventing me from even
           | exploring the jewelry CAD options... Matrix Gold which is
           | apparently the preeminent CAD software in the jewelry
           | industry... Costs a few thousand dollars and only runs on
           | Windows... Both of which are completely out of touch with my
           | open source Linux setup.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-09-15 23:01 UTC)