It's a slight overstatement, maybe. But in the general case the answer to your question is yes. I believe OpenSCAD is absolutely not the right tool for functional parts. It has fundamental weaknesses.

You can use it for basic shapes and very simple geometry. But you can use Tinkercad for that too.

Should you use it for CAD generally: I think not. Because complexity balloons out of control. An AI is going to struggle as much as a human does with a complex part in OpenSCAD.

All the text-to-CAD packages are relying on it because there's lots of simple examples in the training set, and because it is declarative — there's a belief that there is a mapping from text to declarative spec and from declarative spec to an object.

But it is the wrong choice for flexible designs that adapt correctly when measurements are changed.

It's clear to me that "AI CAD" developers who think OpenSCAD is adequate to the task have a fundamental misapprehension of the capabilities of the technologies they are actually seeking to replace. OpenSCAD is not representative of the nature or capabilities of modern CAD.

I think that if you are trying to make an adaptable functional part you would be better to start from CAD drawings, with proper constraints on them, and that an AI CAD package should be interacting with those (there are some attempts to do just that).

It's just not that difficult in a modern CAD package, it's not arcane or obscure.

But if you're going to be using code-CAD, you want a programming package that can represent fundamental aspects properly. OpenSCAD cannot.

CadQuery, to be fair to the authors of this post, does now have an experimental 2D constraint solver:

https://cadquery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/sketch.html#constr...

And it has a proper bRep kernel, so it can represent vertexes, edges, arcs and faces in mathematically abstracted (not mesh approximated) forms, and do operations on those (including fillets, though it has its weaknesses there inherited from OpenCascade).

I think an AI that could operate properly on CadQuery models and implement appropriate sketch constraints with an awareness of their implications, choose the right operations, make use of libraries, etc., would be a lot more capable. But it's so much further down the line than people think based on these OpenSCAD toys that produce trivial parts.