Difference between revisions of "Programmatic 3D modeling"

From apm
Jump to: navigation, search
(basic page)
 
m (Pure languages - more or less usable for programmatic CAD)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
== Pure languages - more or less usable for programmatic CAD ==
 
== Pure languages - more or less usable for programmatic CAD ==
  
* [[OpenSCAD]] (easy to learn) in both function and geometry realm which are kept separate (which is sometimes annoying)
+
* '''[[OpenSCAD]]''' (easy to learn) in both function and geometry realm which are kept separate (which is sometimes annoying)
 
----
 
----
 
* [[haskell]] (hard to learn) there are 3D modeling libraries like '''ImplicitCAD''' lack of a live preview is a big issue though
 
* [[haskell]] (hard to learn) there are 3D modeling libraries like '''ImplicitCAD''' lack of a live preview is a big issue though
Line 29: Line 29:
 
* http://implicitcad.org/
 
* http://implicitcad.org/
 
* https://github.com/Haskell-Things/ImplicitCAD
 
* https://github.com/Haskell-Things/ImplicitCAD
 +
----
 +
* https://libfive.com/

Latest revision as of 13:59, 6 June 2023

This article is a stub. It needs to be expanded.

Pure languages - more or less usable for programmatic CAD

  • OpenSCAD (easy to learn) in both function and geometry realm which are kept separate (which is sometimes annoying)

  • haskell (hard to learn) there are 3D modeling libraries like ImplicitCAD lack of a live preview is a big issue though
  • elm (easy to learn) not aimed at 3D modelling – can do 3D stuff but not for expot for manufacturing
  • unison (mid level to learn) not aimed at 3D modelling – no 3D libraries yet :( still early

Languages requiring manual discipline (which always fails because it can)

Related

External links