This. When I was using OpenSCAD about 10 years ago, I immediately found it very intuitive and easy to use for simple things. But for anything complex, I ran i

This. When I was using OpenSCAD about 10 years ago, I immediately found it very intuitive and easy to use for simple things. But for anything complex, I ran into this sort of thing constantly. At the time the documentation of the language mentioned such issues, but failed to specify the language completely, leaving lots of ambiguous cases that I just had to try out to see what would happen. The behavior really seemed to be something that just agglomerated as the author had added features, rather than something planned with a design philosophy behind it. I found it hard to work around and plan more complex shapes as a result. I haven't been back to look at the docs in ages; perhaps it's better-specified now. I ended up doing my more complex stuff in an OpenSCAD clone I hacked together on top of https://evanw.github.io/csg.js/ https://evanw.github.io/csg.js/ until I ran into problems with non-manifold surfaces. Simple problems I could repair, but that library's really only intended for visualizations, not generating STLs for printing, so eventually I went beyond what I could fix. So then I wrote an implicit surface renderer [also in JS] using https://github.com/mikolalysenko/surface-nets https://github.com/mikolalysenko/surface-nets, and that was less-precise, and a bit limited [my code, not theirs], but got the job done. A short while later, I found implicitcad.org, and saw what I could have written, had I had just one more epiphany. I've never used it, but I like the philosophy behind it, and that may be what I try when I get back to 3D printing.