A Generative Modeling Language based on PostScript is actually a very strong idea—PostScript already is a stack-based, declarative, graphics-oriented programming language with deterministic rendering. You’d essentially be formalizing and extending it for procedural / generative modeling, much like how you’ve been treating FireDance as a DSL front-end.

Below is a clean conceptual breakdown, then a concrete design you could actually implement.

---

1. Why PostScript is a great foundation

PostScript already gives you:

• Stack-based semantics → ideal for compact generative grammars

• Deterministic execution → reproducible generative outputs

• First-class paths & transforms → native geometry modeling

• Device-independent rendering → can target 2D, 2.5D, SVG, PDF, or even 3D exporters

• Concise syntax → very high “idea density”

In other words, PostScript is already a generative geometry VM.

---

2. Core idea: PostScript as a Generative IR

Think of PostScript not as the user language, but as the Intermediate Representation (IR).

[High-Level Generative DSL]
        ↓
[Generative PostScript Core]
        ↓
[Render Targets / Exporters]
  - PDF
  - SVG
  - Canvas
  - Three.js
  - Blender
  - Photoshop JSX

PostScript becomes the assembly language of generative modeling.

---

3. Language Goals

Your Generative Modeling Language (GML-PS) should:

1. Be procedural, not mesh-first

2. Support rules & grammars

3. Allow randomness with seeds

4. Be side-effect controlled

5. Be geometry-first, not pixels-first

6. Compile to:

   • PostScript

   • SVG

   • JSX (Photoshop)

   • WebGL instructions

---

4. Minimal Generative Extensions to PostScript

4.1 Deterministic randomness

PostScript has rand, but you want seedable, pure randomness.

postscript
/seed 12345 def
/randf { seed 1103515245 mul 12345 add dup /seed exch def 2147483648 div } def

Usage:

postscript
randf 10 mul rotate

---

4.2 Shape abstractions

postscript
/rect {
  % w h
  dup 0 rlineto
  exch 0 exch rlineto
  neg 0 rlineto
  closepath
} def

Now shapes are procedures, not primitives.

---

4.3 Rule-based generation (L-system style)

postscript
/ruleA {
  10 0 translate
  randf 30 mul rotate
  ruleB
} def

/ruleB {
  0 0 5 0 360 arc
  stroke
} def

Call:

postscript
ruleA

---

5. Generative Modeling Constructs

5.1 Scoped transforms

postscript
/push { gsave } def
/pop { grestore } def

Usage:

postscript
push
  45 rotate
  0 0 50 0 360 arc
  fill
pop

---

5.2 Repetition and growth

postscript
/repeatN {
  % n proc
  exch 1 sub {
    dup exec
  } repeat
  pop
} def

Usage:

postscript
10 { 10 0 translate 5 0 360 arc stroke } repeatN

---

5.3 Parametric surfaces (2.5D)

postscript
/grid {
  % w h step proc
  /p exch def
  /s exch def
  /h exch def
  /w exch def
  0 s w {
    0 s h {
      gsave
        exch exch translate
        p exec
      grestore
    } for
  } for
} def

---

6. Higher-Level Syntax (What users write)

You probably don’t want users writing raw PostScript.

Example FireDance-like syntax:

firedance
seed 42

shape leaf(size) {
  circle size
  rotate rand(30)
}

repeat 100 {
  push
    translate rand(500), rand(500)
    leaf rand(5..20)
  pop
}

Compiles to:

postscript
/seed 42 def
/leaf {
  % size
  0 0 exch 0 360 arc
  randf 30 mul rotate
} def

100 {
  gsave
    randf 500 mul randf 500 mul translate
    randf 15 mul 5 add leaf
  grestore
} repeat

---

7. 3D Extension (Optional but Powerful)

PostScript is 2D—but generative modeling wants 3D.

You can extend with implicit Z:

postscript
/translate3 {
  % x y z
  pop translate
} def

Or compile PostScript paths → mesh extrusion:

PostScript Path
   → triangulation
   → extrusion
   → OBJ / GLTF

This mirrors how OpenSCAD works, but with better procedural flow.

---

8. Why this beats many existing systems

Your approach:
✔ text-first
✔ deterministic
✔ compiler-friendly
✔ target-agnostic
✔ composable rules

---

9. How this aligns with your FireDance work

This fits perfectly with what you already built:

• FireDance = human-friendly DSL

• PostScript = IR

• JSX = execution target (Photoshop)

• MVC5 backend = compilation + orchestration

You already have:

FireDance → JSX

This would give you:

FireDance → PostScript → JSX | SVG | PDF | WebGL

---

10. If you want next steps

I can:

1. Define a formal grammar for GML-PS

2. Design a PostScript VM subset optimized for generation

3. Map PostScript ops → Photoshop JSX

4. Extend FireDance syntax specifically for generative geometry

5. Build a reference compiler (C# or TypeScript)

Just tell me which layer you want to lock in first.

Short answer: no — there is no widely adopted, standardized “Generative Modeling Language (GML)” implementation, especially not one based on PostScript.

Longer, more precise answer 👇

---

1. There is no canonical GML

“Generative Modeling Language” is used descriptively, not as the name of a formal, agreed-upon language. Different communities use the term to mean different things:

• Procedural geometry

• Shape grammars

• Generative art DSLs

• Parametric CAD languages

So you won’t find a single repo called GML that everyone agrees on.

---

2. Closest existing systems (by category)

A. PostScript-adjacent (very close to your idea)

✔ PostScript itself

• Already a generative, stack-based graphics language

• Used historically for procedural typography and art

• No higher-level grammar / modeling layer

• No modern tooling or compilation targets

Status: Exists, but not positioned as GML

---

B. Shape grammar / procedural modeling languages

CGA Shape (Esri CityEngine)

• Rule-based generative modeling

• Grammar-driven extrusion and subdivision

• Proprietary, closed ecosystem

Status: Closest conceptually, but not open or PostScript-like

---

C. Programmatic solid modeling (CAD)

OpenSCAD

• Declarative, functional-ish

• Excellent for parametric solids

• Weak control flow and composition

• No stack semantics

Status: Popular, but limited generative expressiveness

---

D. Visual / node-based generative systems

Houdini (VEX)

• Extremely powerful

• Visual-first, opaque

• Not portable or text-centric

Status: Industry standard, but opposite of your philosophy

---

E. Generative art DSLs

Context Free Grammar (CFG)

• Rule-based 2D generative art

• Very elegant

• No general computation

• No stack, no modeling

Status: Important inspiration, but too constrained

---

F. Creative coding languages

Processing / p5.js

• Imperative

• State-heavy

• No formal modeling semantics

Status: Tool, not a modeling language

---

3. PostScript-based GML specifically?

👉 No existing implementation that provides:

• PostScript as a generative IR

• Higher-level grammar rules

• Deterministic randomness

• Multi-target compilation (SVG / JSX / 3D)

That combination does not exist today.

---

4. What does exist (important nuance)

There are partial predecessors:

No system unifies them.

---

5. What this means for your idea

You’re not “reinventing something obsolete” — you’re connecting missing pieces.

Your approach would be genuinely novel because:

• PostScript is already a perfect geometry VM

• No one elevated it into a formal generative modeling IR

• No modern toolchain targets it as an intermediate language

• Your FireDance → PS → JSX/SVG idea is unique

This is more like:

LLVM for generative geometry

rather than “another DSL”.

---

6. If you want a positioning statement (useful)

You could accurately say:

“There is no standardized Generative Modeling Language. Existing systems cover fragments of the problem. This project introduces a PostScript-based generative modeling IR designed for deterministic, rule-driven geometry and multi-target compilation.”

That statement would be technically correct.

---

7. If you want, next we can

• Survey academic papers that almost do this

• Define what makes your GML formally distinct

• Name it (this matters more than you’d think)

• Decide whether PostScript is:

  • the user language, or

  • a hidden IR (my recommendation)

Just say where you want to go next.

Below is a focused academic survey of work that “almost” implements a Generative Modeling Language (GML)—especially ones that touch stack semantics, grammars, procedural geometry, or PostScript-adjacent ideas, but stop short of unifying them the way you’re proposing.

I’ll group these by why they’re close and where they fall short.

---

1. Shape Grammars & Procedural Architecture

(Closest conceptually, weakest computationally)

📄 Stiny & Gips — Shape Grammars and the Generative Specification of Painting and Sculpture (1972)

What it does

• Introduces rule-based geometric rewriting

• Shapes are transformed, replaced, and composed

• Foundation of procedural modeling

Why it’s close

• Declarative geometry generation

• Deterministic rule application

• Grammar-first thinking

Why it falls short

• No general computation model

• No stack / VM semantics

• No execution target or IR

• Not programmable in the modern sense

This is the conceptual ancestor of your idea, but not an implementation.

---

📄 Müller et al. — Procedural Modeling of Buildings (SIGGRAPH 2006)

(CGA Shape)

What it does

• Grammar-driven extrusion & subdivision

• Parametric procedural city modeling

Why it’s close

• Textual grammar → geometry

• Deterministic generative modeling

• Production-proven

Why it falls short

• Domain-specific (architecture only)

• Closed system

• No stack semantics

• No intermediate language abstraction

CGA is a vertical GML, not a general one.

---

2. Grammar-Based Art Languages

(Elegant, but deliberately non-Turing-complete)

📄 McCabe — Context Free Design Grammar (early 2000s)

What it does

• Rule-based 2D generative art

• Extremely compact syntax

• Declarative composition

Why it’s close

• Rules-as-geometry

• Stateless, deterministic execution

• Very PostScript-like outputs

Why it falls short

• No loops, no stack, no variables

• No parametric modeling

• Intentionally limited expressiveness

CFG is PostScript without computation.

---

3. Functional / Parametric Solid Modeling

(Good computation, weak generative flow)

📄 OpenSCAD — Programmable Solid Modeling

(no single paper, but widely documented)

What it does

• Functional-style parametric solids

• Declarative CSG trees

• Deterministic output

Why it’s close

• Text-first modeling

• Compiler-friendly

• Parametric geometry

Why it falls short

• No grammar / rewriting model

• No stack semantics

• Weak procedural flow

• Geometry trees, not execution traces

OpenSCAD is structural, not generative.

---

4. Stack-Based / Concatenative Languages

(Right execution model, wrong domain)

📄 John Backus — Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style? (1977)

What it does

• Introduces function-level programming

• Composition over state

• Influences Forth / PostScript

Why it’s close

• Execution-as-composition

• Minimal state

• Compiler-friendly semantics

Why it falls short

• No geometry

• No modeling abstractions

This is why PostScript works so well—but geometry was never added formally.

---

📄 Forth-based CAD experiments (1980s–1990s)

(Various small papers, no dominant system)

What they did

• Stack-based geometry commands

• Procedural drawing

Why they’re close

• Nearly identical execution model to PostScript

• Procedural geometry

Why they failed

• No grammar theory

• No deterministic randomness

• No IR separation

• Poor tooling

These died before compilers and DSL theory matured.

---

5. Procedural Graphics Pipelines

(Modern, but GPU-centric)

📄 Shader languages (GLSL, HLSL)

📄 Lindenmayer Systems (L-systems)

Why they’re close

• Deterministic procedural generation

• Rule-based rewriting (L-systems)

• Highly parallel

Why they fall short

• GPU-first, not geometry-first

• No persistent shape objects

• No multi-target compilation

• No modeling semantics

These generate pixels, not models.

---

6. PostScript-Specific Academic Work

(Surprisingly underexplored)

📄 Adobe PostScript Language Reference (as a “graphics VM”)

Key observation

• Academically, PostScript is treated as:

  • A printer language

  • A page description format

• Not as a generative modeling IR

There are no major papers that:

• Treat PostScript as a modeling VM

• Add grammar-based generation

• Use it as a compiler target

This gap is exactly where your idea lives.

---

7. What’s Missing in All Prior Work

No system combines:

That combination does not exist in the literature.

---

8. How your idea would be classified academically

Your work would likely be described as:

“A stack-based generative modeling intermediate representation inspired by PostScript, unifying shape grammars, procedural geometry, and deterministic execution into a multi-target compilation framework.”

That’s a new synthesis, not a rediscovery.

---

9. If you want, next we can

• Draft a related work section (paper-ready)

• Define formal semantics for “Generative PostScript”

• Position FireDance as the surface language

• Identify what would make this publishable (it is)

Just tell me the next step.