Difference between revisions of "Programmatic 3D modeling"
From apm
m (→External links) |
m (→Pure languages - more or less usable for programmatic CAD) |
||
| 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 | ||
Latest revision as of 13:59, 6 June 2023
Contents
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)
- libfive (guile scheme or python)
- python based OpenSCAD clones
- Javascrip B-Rep CSG libraries: https://evanw.github.io/csg.js/
- ...
Related
- Non-destructive modeling
- Constructive solid geometry
- 3D modeling
- OpenSCAD
- Relations of APM to purely functional programming
