> I can understand that, having experienced something similar myself. The problem with users wanting things is they're often things that aren't really compatible with your vision, so you have to compromise and eventually, if you "succeed", you end up being a giant mess that everybody complains about like ANSYS.
Yes, unfortunately that is exactly right as I already am getting the heat. No matter what is wrong Matlab, meshing, OpenFOAM, FEniCS etc it always comes back to me even if its from an external solver or component, leading to lots of support. So yeah, I know many things could be much better and I'm far from what my "vision" is, but I don't have such resources so I have to try to do the best I can.
> Supporting multiple solvers is surely going to mean having solver-specific features, isn't it? Which would eat away at what seems like your vision. Or are you able to keep it abstracted from that so they really are interchangeable?
I have so far kept it abstracted with a minimum set of features, but some solvers only support some physics, models, or features so as you allude to sooner or later it will begin to become specialized modes or so for each solver, which is not ideal and I'm not yet sure the best way to move forward.
