Yes actually :) It took me a long time to actually decide to invest in GA because the sentiment I had was "it just replaces what I already know" and what I kne

Yes actually :) It took me a long time to actually decide to invest in GA because the sentiment I had was "it just replaces what I already know" and what I knew at the time was matrices, quaternions, and dual quaternions. It turns out, I was pretty wrong in that respect. For example, in the current predominant formulism, it's awkward to rotate a line with a quaternion, then identify the dual quaternion that maps that line to yet another line, then apply that dual quaternion to a point. In GA, this just works (mind exploding gif). Or, I can construct a line between two points, then find the quaternion that maps a different line to that one, and convert it to a matrix to do "look at" transforms in a shader. Also just works. I think the more I use GA, the more elegant I find it, and it takes me well past the formulism I used to know (which is still useful from time to time, but far less expressive). While I could provide helpers for all the common operations, the operators in GA will always have their use because... there's just so much you can do with it. At some point, the library will just because unwieldy/large. I haven't necessarily found the sweet spot yet for size/convenience, but I hope to converge there over time. Provide enough to be usable for most people, while at the same time being a launchpad for learning more about the abstraction itself. From an implementation point of view, I've found a number of optimizations that were made easier (or even possible) with GA that I hadn't identified despite working with quaternions for years before.