Re: [fxtf-drafts] [geometry-2] Proposal: Geometry Utility Methods (#602)

Sorry to be putting a dampener on the enthusiasm, but I think we're starting to reinvent the wheel a bit here.

We're proposing things that we would find useful, which is fine, but also trying to second guess what others might find useful too, which is often a waste of effort.

Can I propose instead finding a popular, full featured JS geometry library - you know, exactly what we've been using to meet these needs to date - and using that as a basis for the functionality to be included, and even the algorithmic approach. These long established libraries work, and have incorporated the features that people actually want and use, plus they'll have dealt with any weird edge cases, and gotchas.

I'm not going to propose a particular library, because my experience of using them is limited, and almost certainly outdated.

These are *solved problems* and getting bogged down with coming up with our own solution to them is wasteful.

If you spend all of your time trying to create the perfect wheel, if you're lucky, after a lot of effort, you'll eventually have what might be perfect from your perspective, but everyone else has just used one of the many perfectly good wheels that were already out there, and has built entire cars which they're driving around in the sunshine, having a great time; whilst all you can do you is sit in a gloomy garage, staring at a shiny new wheel that nobody else will be able to easily understand or repair, propped up against the wall.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by ciw1973
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/602#issuecomment-3041147621 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Sunday, 6 July 2025 07:54:31 UTC