If you offset in both direction from a curve, you can pick a start and end threshold to fill an outline. This only gives you rounded outline strokes. If you had separable tangential versus normal SDFs you could vary your end cap types.
Now how do you handle an arbitrary set of knots/control points in one shader? That is a separate problems for which there are a bunch of solutions.
Tablets are important, so native apps for tablets makes sense if you think this is the main device people will use. ProCreate, Autodesk Sketchbook, etc. live on the tablet and native makes sense for that experience.
But then do not target desktop. You should target tablets and the pen-based interface on them.
> The GPU’s hardware-implemented tessellation is (a) not compatible enough.
I am unsure why we are talking about GPU-based tesselation again. I said do it on the CPU in my comment you are referencing.
> Counter-intuitively, stroked paths are harder to render than filled ones.
I would if it could be rendered via a 2D SDF? Similar to how you can do resolution independent fonts/decals via SDFs... basically use a cutoff distance from stroke midline or similar.
> Also, the code in general is slow compared to C++, C# and many other statically typed languages. It’s incredibly hard to generate fast code from very dynamic languages like JS or Python, where everything is a hash map.
The above is 100% incorrect. The trick is to not use slow hashmaps and then your code is near the speed of C++. Use ArrayBuffers instead for everything. I said this in my earlier comment.
The video I linked to in my original post was directly relevant to this other take on Peter Pan and philosophy.
I'd like to understand why my comment is being downvoted by you and others?
Did you think the comment wasn't relevant to this overall post?
It feels like it is simply because I mentioned Jordan Peterson and anything that mentions him must be downvoted because he has been declared bad. Okay then.
Given I mentioned Jordan Peterson again, you should probably downvote this comment as well as a thoughtcrime.
I think you can tessellation on the CPU in an adaptive fashion (e.g. based on curvature or similar) and update that on a per frame (add, remove tessellation points) basis rather than re-tesselating from scratch each frame. The tessellation would just have weights from each control point.
You can modify the vertices on the CPU, update the tessellation points and update those to the GPU. Get 60fps should be possible even when updating 1Ks of vertices (probably more) per second. Do this for whatever changed using dirty lists or something so you do not update everything to the GPU on each frame. This should be relatively fast if you using ArrayBuffers.
100% this can be done in JavaScript in a very fast fashion. It may only seem like it can not be done if you are doing JS poorly. Maybe people make the mistake of not using ArrayBuffers for everything and that makes it slow. The main limitation in JS is the lack of really great multithreading, but I do not think you need it here.
If you want ultimate speed use WASM for the CPU-based updating of your geometry structures.
Anyhow, you are mistaken in your current beliefs and it will hurt you going forward.
Amazing, but this really should be a web-based app and not desktop based. Or a hybrid strategy where the desktop-based app is actually running JavaScript in an Electron shell or something.
Please switch your approach ASAP or you will be beaten by a web-based app that does this exact thing, someone else will be the Figma to your Sketch.
This specific use-case doesn't require the large amount of resources that would necessitate a desktop app.
I think that few are using BTC as a currency because it doesn't make sense as a currency, rather 99.9% of people are using it as a speculative investment asset.
BTC is designed to be highly limited in supply and thus all prices denominated in BTC should drop over time by design of the currency. Everything else in society, if it was all on BTC, would do similarly. Basically your salary this year should be smaller than it was last year but your buying power should be similar.
This encourages people to hold BTC because its relative value increases over time. Thus BTC by being deflationary encourages holding and not spending. It will lead to a less dynamic economy than if we had an inflationary currency which encouraged spending/investment.
> Aaand you just moved the goal posts. Notice how you switched your argument from "currency" to "good currency". So dishonest.
I think you want a binary world where things are either A or B and not somewhere in between. BTC is being used as a currency in El Salvador and it is government mandated as a currency. Thus it is a currency by that definition. But my argument is that it isn't a good currency based on its properties (which I listed some and also linked to an article on desirable principles of a currency), rather it has the qualities of an asset.
I think I haven't changed what I am arguing, but I think you misunderstood my argument as something much more simplistic than what I was actually saying.
It doesn't meet the requirements of a good currency. There is hyper inflation and they have redenominated it a few times now and are planning on doing it again.
Is a boat with a huge hole in its hull a good boat? Technically it is probably a boat, but it isn't what one would consider a good and desirable boat and it doesn't allow one to do what one can usually do with boats.
This is the same with BTC. You can call it a currency, but if you use it as a currency it doesn't currently exhibit the properties that one wants from a currency.
You want stability. There are many ways to achieve that.
Your example above shows a 1% swing -- which is nothing. Yesterday BTC dropped by 14-18% depending on how you define it.
Imaging buying a Tesla and you budgeted for $40K but today it jumped $45K. That would throw off your plans and you wouldn't probably buy it, hoping for things to change. This means that the thing you are using for the transaction is actually preventing commerce because now timing matters. This is a hinderance to commerce and those using it will not have the liquidity/dynamic economy as compared to those using a stable currency.
This is a sign you are not using a currency for the transaction but rather an asset.
Now USD is stable in parts because it is accepted widely and everything is denominated in it. If everything was denominated in BTC, then it would have similar stability. Basically the more things are denominated in a particular currency/asset, the more stable it becomes.
Wait, is BTC really only doing 4 transactions a second? I knew it was bad, but I didn't realize this bad. Bitcoin is like a 1960s mainframe computer in an old bank headquarters that runs everything but is an archaic relic.
"Crash" of an asset/currency is always against other assets/currency -- you need to define what its comparable otherwise you can not measure it.
Was it a "crash" though in scope?
Black Friday in 1987 was a 22% drop in the stock market. Yesterday was a 14% to 18% drop depending on how you calculate it. Close to what was considered a prototypical "crash": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)
Basically BTC is highly volatile, thus it probably crashes all the time based on standard definitions.