I see it more like a rallying call to the GPU vendors, Microsoft, Khronos and Apple what the next major versions of D3D, Vulkan and Metal should look like.
I have schizoaffective disorder and work in the tech industry and have not noticed any of the things this author talks about. While I am medicated, even if I inform bosses, coworkers or HR that I have this dangerous mental illness, I am treated completely normal. It is only when I have an episode of psychosis that things get difficult, and rightfully so for the people around you, because it is extremely difficult for someone to have any sort of normal relationship with someone who is psychotic and delusional. Psychosis happens when there is a failure in the healthcare. Psychosis does ruin relationships, but I don't blame other people for this. As a patient, while still in my right mind, I must insist that my healthcare needs are adequately addressed. This includes retaining a qualified doctor, setting up a medical power of attorney, reminding myself that I must take medications that work, despite the side effects, and possibly asking for reduced hours or responsibilities. It is neither everyone else's fault for the difficulties I face, nor my fault, it just is the way it, and pointing the finger at everyone else is not helpful. I am grateful for the consideration and forgiveness people do offer considering the objective circumstance.
A truly new geometric kernel would be great, and it's been a dream of mine, but I have too many other things that need to be finished before I start writing one.
Usually when you talk about a geometric kernel in the past three decades, you're talking mainly about, but not exclusively about, a solid modeler.
A solid modeler generally consists of a trimmed curve and surface library with lots of topological reasoning, to be able to represent closed regions of space and manipulate them by adding holes and rounding features and offsets. The idea is to be able to represent and operate on just about any 3d shape imaginable. Solid modelers of recent years have had support for nurbs surfaces and polygonal subdivision surfaces, but also include support for conic sections, beziers and other implicit or parametric curves or surfaces. Many of them, like OpenCascade are arranged in a logical object oriented fashion which abstracts the complexity. They have to be general, featureful and fast for anybody to want to use them. It's a whole heck or a lot of math and geometric reasoning (and debugging) which makes them valuable (and huge), and although you might want to talk about a "new" kernel you would never just want to chuck something like OpenCascade and start over. OpenCascade, ACIS, Parasolid, SMLib and others encapsulate a huge corpus of knowledge no matter what language they are written in. I have taken criticism from other Lisp hackers for writing Lisp bindings to OpenCascade instead of "starting over" in Lisp, but these people really have no idea what they are talking about.
Interesting. Sounds like a non-trivial undertaking. Both writing an interface or starting a new design. Either way, I would be happy if our system develops along to the point that serious engineering packages would want to use it.
