You still need to be careful. I'm an avid climber. Most autobelay accidents happen because people don't clip in properly. However for me the auto belay cable broke after catching me. Resulted in five minor spinal fractures.

So from my experience I would say at least Google what are the common auto belay manufacturers and only use gyms that have them. True Blue and Perfect Decent are the only auto belays I will touch now.

thanks, I'll investigate my local gym!

update: they use trueblue

Jesus, what do you mean the cable broke? The rope itself got cut? Even though the device didn't fail?

I'm really averse to the autobelay because I can't feel the "pull" of a human belayer, so this is a nightmare scenario for me.

Then again, I'm sure that the autobelay is safer than the average human, even so, except I really trust my belayer.

That sounds terrible, did you take any legal action?

I did. It's behind me now and more importantly I'm fully recovered mentally and physically.

I don't live in the states so it's not as dramatic legally as you may imagine.

For those who are interested. I have been working on a similar CAD Modeler. I think of it as a spiritual successor to OpenSCAD.

It has support for bidirectional modeling (ex: get the height and width of an object and use it later) and multi part workflows to design more complex works.

https://www.dslcad.com/

This is really cool, does it fix OpenSCAD's need to spam epsilons everywhere to avoid Z-fighting?

TBH I am not sure but I suspect the answer is yes. I use OpenCascade as the base CAD kernel and it handles things like Z-fighting a lot better. I built DSLCAD after completing porting OpenSCAD to wasm because I wanted a better programmatic CAD platform. It's development is really "as I need it" from then on.

My partner is a medical doctor. She can't navigate around. I don't think there is any link. Navigation was something that I was taught early and is a skill like anything else.

There is something nice and pure about this site. It is probably just coincidence and random that the number 37 is seen around. Likely something along the lines of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.

However none of that matters. What matters is the site is there for all of us to enjoy. It made me smile and I appreciate that.

Good write-up. What was understated but I appreciate was that this optimization was done late and after being picked up via profiling. For devs there is sometimes a drive to do this kind of work early. It really should always be done late just as in this post.

You have a super interesting use case. Can you reach out on the github issues so that we can track it? From what I can tell you are trying to generate GCode directly from the software is that the case?

Yes, that's it exactly --- basically trying to avoid the need for additional CAM software and provide complete and total control over machine movement.

The goal of pipe is to allow the code to read top to bottom. I always found it hard to explain the way an OpenSCAD program reads upwards when nesting operations.

As for the syntax there are certainly a lot of ways it could feel. JS devs would likely be familiar with =>, F# and Ocaml |>, Java ->. In the end I just picked one that felt natural to type for myself. From my experience if you write in enough languages you develop the ability to switch as needed.

You are probably right. The Linux hacker in me still kind of prefers having a bit of style to names. Maybe over time this will change.

Thanks for checking it out. I am glad you like it.

1. Now that you have asked for it, I certainly plan on adding `loft`. Thank you for the suggestion. Looking quickly it looks quite reasonable to implement. I would expect to add it in the near future.

2. It is a digital art coloring book image that I filled in and used as a background.

Hey. I'm glad that this is what you are looking for. At the moment there isn't constraint based modeling. However given that you have a programming language at your disposal you can model your constraints yourself.

Thanks for the reply!

Would you accept a PR for first-class support for specifying constraints between variables (and object measurements) as part of the language or would that be divergent with the goals of the language? I find it to be an important part of SolidWorks etc. because often times I'm trying to build something where I know one of the dimensions is constrained a certain way but that's not how I'd parameterize the object. And I don't want to be doing math for e.g. calculating the diagonal over and over again as part of calculating parameter values or modeling constraints, I like that in Solidworks that's part of the package. I believe this issue is important to other mechanical engineers as well.

However I do want to say, great work, I think a programming language is a great step forward for CAD regardless, and this project seems to be pretty well done!

For sure I would accept a PR! One of the goals I have here is to try and make it approachable to expand for others. If you have an idea on how to make this work please feel free to work on it.

To save time up front I would suggest doing a bit of design work. Feel free to make an issue and post things like example code snippets of how you would like to see this work. We can work together to make this feature a reality.