clarify the added value compared to existing coding environments #59

Typical feedback is "it's interesting but I wouldn't see myself coding in VR".

See also

and it is indeed correct. In most situation "coding in VR" is inferior to "traditional coding", like coding on a flat screen with a keyboard.

This is analogous to "reading in VR" as, regardless of screen quality (resolution, refresh rate, field of view, etc) is not appealing to most. What might be more appealing than reading in VR is rather rebinding in VR then reading back outside of VR, a subset of the whole workflow.

Consequently the question here is the same. If coding in VR is not as good as coding outside of VR, which specific park of the workflow genuinely are?

Potential path

browing a code base
refactoring
code where the result is intrensically spacial e.g #31

Note also that the audience is not homogenous, i.e an experienced developer does not have the same expectations, and baggage, as a junior.

Consequently considerations on also mastered concepts and tools must be taking into account

#30

A single example of something impractical otherwise, e.g SCAD, is enough to prove the point and start the conversation. Not all features need to be implemented to complete with existing environment, especially if import/export works well (which there also only need an example or two to make the point).