[alexdowad]

This is interesting to me. The first question which comes to my mind is: As a D3 user, is this something which I might prefer to D3, at least in some contexts? If so, when might it be preferable to D3?

That's obviously a controversial question, and I can understand that the OP might want to avoid it, but realistically that is what potential users will want to know.

Anyone here who knows both D3 and Ripl and is willing to dip their toes into controversy?

[andrewcourtice]

This is a great question.

At this point in the project my recommendation is to NOT pick Ripl over any other more mature library of similar feature-set, especially D3, Two.JS, Konva etc. These libraries, in particular D3, are written by very clever people and have been battle tested for all sorts of use-cases. Although the end goal is for Ripl to have feature/stability parity with a lot of these other libraries, at this point I can only recommend it for hobby projects or curiosity.

[alexdowad]

Mr. Courtice, your cautious and restrained assessment of the value of your own work is appreciated. I applaud your humility and like to think that I would take a similar approach in your position.

However, you have not really answered the big question which others who are interested in your work would like to understand. To mix metaphors, you are dancing around the elephant in the room.

You are welcome to keep dancing around that elephant if you wish. If you are ready to stop dancing, then:

In what ways, if any, do you aspire for Ripl to achieve (objective or subjective) superiority over other libraries "of similar feature-set"? Is it intended to offer better performance? An API which some users might prefer? A smaller deliverable code size? An implementation which is easier to understand? Or something else?

You stated that your goal is to achieve "feature/stability parity", but is that really it? Or is there something else?