>Code as CAD as an idea I believe is flawed. Strongly disagree, the typical problems one has with designing objects and mechanisms in CAD tools are extremely s

>Code as CAD as an idea I believe is flawed. Strongly disagree, the typical problems one has with designing objects and mechanisms in CAD tools are extremely similar to the problems software engineers have. Parametric design, for example, is nothing but a program whose inputs change and whose outputs are 3D model. Versioning is another obvious example. Parts reuse yet another. Test driven design. Automated testing. The list is very long. > Designing physical objects requires good visualisations and iterative feedback True, but I fail to see how that is incompatible with code as CAD. > Besides, most mechanical engineering are not proficient coders. In the 80's most traditional film animators had never touched a computer. These folks are now either out of a job or have switched to using computers. The fact that mechanical engineers aren't proficient coders is a symptom of the fact that proper 'code as CAD' tools don't exist yet, not a law of physics. When such tools start to reach maturity, you will see - just like it happened in film animation - a whole new generation of mechanical engineer pick up the new tools and beat the pants of the old way of doing things.