MudBlazor VS solvespace

Our website is updated as well: MudBlazor - Blazor Component Library

Though I can't develop beautiful UI and good UX even if my life depended on it. I can write a functional front-end, but don't expect it to be pretty. I usually ask for assistance regarding that from our UX designers instead where they essentially layout the whole UI (either on figma or Photoshop) so I just need to make it functional. Component based frameworks these days (JS, and Blazor) really helps at least. The UX guys usually make sharable base components that the company needs (buttons, grids, etc...), which includes all the styling and animations and we use those instead to create decent looking UI. For personal stuff I use MudBlazor which kinda does the same, but I do know a bit of css to customize when needed.

There are a ton of component libraries out there. I like the mudblazor library. https://mudblazor.com

There are grid controls from the usual commercial vendors like Radzen and Telerik. I used them briefly during a free trial. It has a funny name, but MudBlazor [1] has been the MIT licensed library I have been using lately. I have been using their Table control, which may be what you are looking for in a data grid. [2] Check it out and see.

[1] https://mudblazor.com/

[2] https://mudblazor.com/components/table#api

It seems to be a known issue a known issue. By default, external libraries such as MudBlazor are not trimmed

I recommend Mud blazor if you're going for Material design. For other design languages Andt Blazor's pretty polished and there's Blazorise as well if you want to be flexible (it supports Antd, Bulma, Bootstrap and Material via configuration).

The ones I've used that's pretty good are MudBlazor (Material Design), Antd blazor (Antd), and Blazorise (Multi design support via configuration). There's also the newly announced Fluent UI for Blazor at MS build that's from MS themselves but I haven't tried it yet.

There's Uno that's been talked about by MS community standups if you wanna use UWP XAML to do the Job. If you wanted to use Blazor though, you'll have to at least learn a bit of CSS and Html. Luckily you can find really nice component libraries like mudblazor that does a lot of the nitty gritty html + styling for you. So you'll just have to use their components most of the time and with little to no JS required (depending in your usecase).

Can second this!

However, I would recommend https://solvespace.com! It hits a sweet spot between features vs complexity/learning effort.

We use rebase on solvespace, along with sensible squashing so most commits along master are pretty self contained. You can see the clean history here:

https://github.com/solvespace/solvespace/commits/master/

I changed a behavior to the "more standard" one because it felt obviously right. This was a 3 line change. But the was enough backlash right there in the pull request. So I spent a couple hours remembering how to add a configuration option to keep the old way for those guys:

https://github.com/solvespace/solvespace/pull/1425

> If you like Linkage, you might also like Solvespace.

No, I mean Brent Curry's Linkage[1] bicycle design software, not David Rector's Linkage Mechanism Designer and Simulator[2].

You should read Wikipedia article.[0]

N.B. About SolveSpace, as I'm its experienced user[youtube,patreon], I may say next: yes, it could be used for bike mockup, as any other CAD, but it still has a lot of limitations and even does not export correct STEP files yet[3], and in FreeCAD such STEP could fixed only partially.[video]

So, for serious 3D CAD work I highly recommend use FreeCAD (and LibreCAD for 2D CAD work) instead of SolveSpace, and use SolveSpace only as a helper tool like a calc or as a notepad for noting ideas.

About Linkage Mechanism Designer and Simulator, it is only useful for planar (2D) kinematics analyze, and if You are looking an alternative for it take a look on Pyslvs[4], that is in part based on SolveSpace's solver.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rattleCAD#History

[1] https://bikechecker.com/

[2] https://blog.rectorsquid.com/linkage-mechanism-designer-and-...

[3] https://github.com/solvespace/solvespace/issues/206

[4] https://github.com/KmolYuan/Pyslvs-UI

[video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3LJMeqUDrU

[youtube] https://www.youtube.com/@appsoft

[patreon] https://patreon.com/app4soft

C++ this file covers all the math for working with NURBS curves and surfaces:

https://github.com/solvespace/solvespace/blob/master/src/srf...

There is a lot more in other files - triangulation, booleans, creation - but the core math functions are there in very readable form.

>> Maybe somebody has statistical survey of how much of the existing deployed CPU core count is typically used?

My guess is very few cores are used on average. I did some testing with Solvespace to see which build options contributed most to performance:

https://github.com/solvespace/solvespace/issues/972

Obviously using OpenMP for multi-core was the big win. But what's not shown is that in typical usage (not the test I ran) if you're dragging some geometry around it will use all cores (in my case 4 cores / 8 threads) at about 50 percent utilization. That percentage probably drops as more cores are thrown at it due to Amdahl's Law. In other words, throwing double the cores at it will give a good boost to a lot of code that is already taking less than half the time (wall clock time, not CPU time).

We added OpenMP to a number of functions for significant performance gains. And in fact, any remining single-thread operation that gets the parallel treatment is likely to have a significant impact on overall performance since that is where most of the time is spent now. At this point we're more focused on features and bugs.

Algorithmic improvements are possible and I'd like to do those in the future, but they are much harder to do than sprinkling some #pragmas around critical loops. That will improve the scalability though, where multithreading really did not.