Pixelorama VS openscad-graph-editor

I'm finalizing a large bundle of raster graphics and animation importers for Godot. This bundle already supports: Aseprite, Krita and Pencil2D. And will be able to support GraphicsGale, Piskel, Pixelorama and regular GIF-format in the future.

Take a look on Pixelorama https://github.com/Orama-Interactive/Pixelorama

Pixelorama

Someone made an image editor in Godot. Maybe try it out to see how well it works https://github.com/Orama-Interactive/Pixelorama

If none of this sounds appealing, the only other suggestions I have are either find 3rd party magnifying lens software or to search for a new pixel editor. There are some newer pixel art editors out there, such as Pixelorama, PixiEditor and PixelMash. There are also general raster image editors, such as GIMP and Krita. Other suggestions are listed on Lospec.

Pixelorama is another open source pixel editor that looks increasingly like an alternative to Aseprite (although I do not think it is in any way officially trying to be a free clone of that).

Pixelorama https://orama-interactive.itch.io/pixelorama

The Cube was a gift, and the PS work didn't go that far.

I found PS pretty inscrutable, esp. the function-filled variant used in Virtuoso, but did manage to get dimension lines coded up (which promptly ran into precision problems which I eventually gave up on).

OpenSCAD is a lot more approachable, and METAPOST was easy to pick up and make use of:

http://ftp.tug.org/TUGboat/tb40-2/tb125adams-3d.pdf

Still working through this at:

https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/3d-project

and mostly using visual tools (which arguably is limiting me) https://www.blockscad3d.com/editor/ and https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor and of course, had to throw: http://pythonscad.org/ into the mix. Still a bit miffed that Nodebox and Processing or maker.js weren't a good fit.

As a visual person (traditionally trained as a graphic artist), I've wanted this sort of thing for a long while, and I've been trying to use it for 3D.

Surprisingly, there are multiple specialized tools for this:

- https://www.blockscad3d.com --- an adaptation of Google's Blockly to OpenSCAD

- https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor --- wires and nodes, it has the advantage of exposing _all_ of OpenSCAD's commands (the above has a subset)

- https://github.com/Tanneguydv/Pythonocc-nodes-for-Ryven --- a module for using PythonOCC in Ryven --- when I finally succeeded, I found the language inscrutable, even when provided w/ quite nice examples (definitely a failing on my part, not that of the tool)

- https://github.com/graphscad/graphscad --- it took a long while for the source code for this to be made available, and for a while it had compatibility problems (why was "cube" redefined?) --- probably defunct for political reasons, it had some interesting ideas, in particular the ability to have custom icons for modules

- https://www.nodebox.net --- if memory serves I got hung up by not easily being able to do 3D, and when doing 2D having precision problems (or maybe that was Processing.org)

and I've been using these tools to make various things:

https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/3d-project

(and maybe eventually I'll finish something)

The problem I've been running into is there doesn't seem to be an answer to the question:

"What does an algorithm look like?"

I recently had occasion to mention Herman Hesse's _The Glass Bead Game_ (also published as _Magister Ludi_) and I'll bring it up again --- what is a meaningful graphical representation of a program?

The Drakon folks argued that there should be one true path but that's not really communicative and I would note that if this was a simple thing it wouldn't be decades since I last saw a physical Flowcharting Template:

https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object-groups/flo...

(and it's pretty rare to even see a well-done electronic drawing of a flowchart since Visio made its splash and vanished into the bowels of Microsoft)

The main problem seems to be one of expressiveness not scaling up well, hence:

https://blueprintsfromhell.tumblr.com/

https://scriptsofanotherdimension.tumblr.com/

Presumably, one doesn't want to define modules/variables unnecessarily --- but the question becomes where is that boundary?

If you define too many, then you're back to the "wall of text" which one was trying to avoid (but wrapped up in nice boxes with some lines or shapes), and if one doesn't use them (well, look at the pretty/awful images in the links above).

Ideally, a well-coded visual program would have a pleasing aesthetic appearance which is expressive and communicates flow and function, and I've tried for that at:

https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/programming

(though I wish that there was an easy way to export an SVG version of a program)

I believe that what is needed here is some graphical equivalent to Literate Programming: http://literateprogramming.com

Is there a nice GUI toolkit integration which would allow making a graphical application with this? I have an idea I want to try it which might be a good fit.

_That_ is a question I want an answer for.

Currently I am using OpenSCAD Graph Editor: https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor to create programs:

https://willadams.gitbook.io/design-into-3d/programming#open...

but the fundamental question which remains unanswered is:

>What does an algorithm look like?

Interesting.

I've long been frustrated by traditional CAD/CAM, so finally worked up:

https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview

which allows me to use:

http://pythonscad.org/

and:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

to create joinery:

https://forum.makerforums.info/t/openscad-and-python-looking...

which would otherwise be tedious to draw up:

https://community.carbide3d.com/t/creating-drawers/19475/26

Yes, unless you're a visually oriented person like myself who is trying to do the programming visually.

I use:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

to try to design woodworking projects:

https://forum.makerforums.info/t/openscad-and-python-looking...

and I'd like to think that I'm managing to keep the visual appearance sufficiently expressive that it is easier to work with than a traditional textual code representation --- jury is still out on that, we'll see when I start re-purposing what I'm working on for odd/even sides, and then then doing the horizontal version of the joinery.

The problem here is that a fundamental question has not been answered, and as far as I can tell, has not been addressed by any of these visual environments:

What does an algorithm look like?

Herman Hesse alluded to this in his novel _The Glass Bead Game_, but despite decades of discussion and work, no one has made a convincing pysical representation of that system.

I love the concept, and have made some moderately complex attempts, e.g.,:

https://www.blockscad3d.com/community/projects/1430644

https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview

it always devolves to screen size being out-paced by problem complexity --- one gets something of an inkling of this at:

https://scriptsofanotherdimension.tumblr.com/

Alternately, one can just break a project down into modules, but then the top-level view becomes the wall of text representation (albeit w/ nice lines or captured into pretty boxes) which one is ostensibly trying to escape.

I'd love to see someone succeed in this, and I've been using:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

quite a bit, and put a bit of money towards:

http://nodezator.com/

I have been very pleased w/ and impressed by:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

and really want to look deeper into it to see if it could be forked to create a version which creates Python code.

Yes.

OpenSCAD Graph Editor is done with an earlier version and runs on Mac OS, Windows, and Linux:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

I'd really like to see someone get this right, but the problem is we don't seem to know the answer and are asking the wrong question:

>What does an algorithm look like?

Flowcharting and diagramming pre-date computers and used to be popular ways to define software workflows --- why hasn't that directly translated into coding?

The Drakon Editor folks short-circuit this with the idea that the desirable option is always straight down --- is that a viable solution?

The Node Editor folks have solutions which some folks use, but there are also sites filled with literal visual spaghetti code:

https://scriptsofanotherdimension.tumblr.com/

It's been the better part of a century since Herman Hesse wrote _The Glass Bead Game_, but the most flexible systems still end up as a wall of text, which can be hard to format, or which one limits to plain text --- all-too few programmers avail themselves of:

http://literateprogramming.com/

One promising development is Nintendo's _Game Builder's Garage_:

https://www.nintendo.com/store/products/game-builder-garage-...

(which when I gifted it to a co-worker's son was described as "This is the greatest game ever!")

These days I mostly do 3D, so have been using BlocksCAD:

https://www.blockscad3d.com/community/users/67750#/?_k=7br97...

and OpenSCAD Graph Editor:

https://github.com/derkork/openscad-graph-editor

I'd love to see a similar tool for making a GUI program.