i've definitely used 2-d cad programs that can't handle 3-d, and 3-d cad programs that are at best anemic for making 2-d drawings

they're not one and the same, although some programs are capable enough to do both

Those sound like terrible CAD programs that aren't terribly usable for real work. I don't know how I'd do my job with them.

Proper modern 3d CAD systems like Solidworks, Catia, Creo (was ProE), Fusion360, Inventory, etc. have super robust 2d drawing and export functionality. If they didn't we couldn't make the built world the way we have.

It's the same for 2d packages like Autocad. You can draw in 3d in Autocad, but it's not solid modeling its just drawing in 3d, totally different. But it works.

Why would you use tools that don't work?

in some cases, it was because the programs you're naming didn't exist at the time, except for autocad, which didn't have useful 3-d functionality

in other cases, because the 'tools that don't work' from your point of view can do things in minutes that would take hours in those other programs, which i don't have in any case. blender, for example, is terrible at making 2-d dimensioned drawings compared to something like solidworks, but you can model things in blender nobody has ever been able to model in solidworks, and then you can 3-d print them. and, though solidworks can do everything openscad can, there are things that are easy to do in openscad which are a real pain in solidworks. but openscad is also utterly terrible at 2-d drawings

Thank you.

Blender is definitely the wrong tool for this kind of job. It's a graphics tool, not a CAD tool.

A drafter may use a pen, but that doesn't mean a calligraphy pen will do.

depends on what you're designing and what kinds of products you need out of your cad program

I'm intrigued, what kind of products do they design in Blender?

sorry, by 'products you need out of your cad program' i meant things like prints with dimensions and callouts, or stl files, or gerbers, not the physical artifacts those things are used to produce

Got it.

Same question, what are the products you are referring to?

i just answered that in the comment you're replying to, so you have exhausted the presumption of good faith, and this is my last comment in this thread

I'm trying to get at what CAD program outputs you would want that aren't drawings, etc. I'm not aware of any. I'm trying to get at what true application Blender had which you are referencing.

If you don't want a drawing or a manufacturable thing out of your CAD program then its likely not CAD your doing but graphics design or 3d modeling, not design. This is fine, but itsba different thing.

I was trying to parse through that with you...

That a CAD program can only handle 2D doesn't mean that it doesn't describe 3D. Even when plans where physical large format blueprints, 2D, the product they described was of course always 3D. In French, the draughtsman was called a "dessinateur projeteur" - as projecting the 3D objects to a 2D plane (the plan !) was his core skill.

Exactly, because the end result is a 3d object in the real world that needs to function with its surroundings in 3d space. How we write down that shape to communicate it to eachother doesn't matter so much. It's like language vs content

Seems like a massive waste of time to me, like hours vs seconds kind of waste of time. With 3D CAD, if I have a top view of a part and want to add a side view, it's like 3 clicks to just... make it exist. All views are derived from the 3D part/assembly, there's no effort needed to make new views pop into existence.

Maybe I'm out of date on 2D CAD knowledge, but from what I remember you'd literally have to re-sketch the entire part for the new view. Because it's drawn in 2D, you can't just "flip it on its side" like you can a 3D part. And then you have to make sure you actually sketched the part correctly and didn't forget anything.

I see it as analogous to programming with toggle switches.

Exact this. I can design parts in solidworks in a few minutes, drawings included, that would take much longer to draw in autocad.

You are exactly right: 3D CAD has taken the draughtsman's job.

Right, but I think the point is that the 2D can often be just as tedious to create as the 3D (and less enjoyable) but it gets less attention. Tools like this take for granted 2D documentation, not to mention the ability of the part to be fabricated reasonably through a standard process (CNC, injection molding, etc.)

I'm actually in the building construction industry and CAD generated 2D vector documentation is still the standard go-to for workshop and design drawings. Especially when it comes to contractors as-installed drawings. Some work had moved to 3D BIM modeling but often you'll still end up with 2D for a multitude of reasons and unless something drastically changes I don't see 2D work disappearing any time soon. Specifically because you can "show for calarity" in 2D more flexibly than with any 3D system because you are not modeling a space, you are documenting it.

You "could" generate 3D objects to use in a traditional CAD package but most of the time that would be overkill and just make your drawing, at best and un-editable and at worst a performance nightmare.

Rest assured, if the fabricator is in demand you are being charged a premium for turning up with a PDF instead of a 3D model they can auto-convert to toolpaths.

You're not going to be using toolpaths with a building.

Individual structural members, window and door frames are typically CNC'd off-site. Obviously the amount depends on what kind of build (eg. residential one-off, high vs. low spec, apartments, commercial, etc.) but in general for anything departing base-grade one-off small scale residential you will see more and more CNC'd elements.