I understand the goal of making the visualizations dynamic, but even the author isn’t directly tying the code that produced the visualization to the code it represents. There’s a reason:
Communication of an architecture is partly an artistic exercise. The job is to communicate the meaningful parts for the audience and context, and simplify or gloss over entirely the unnecessary details.
Sure you could invest in code generation for said art, but it’s still distinct from the code it represents. Whether you should make that investment in optimization is uniquely a value prop of how important it is that THAT piece of art is always up-to-date + how hard it is to manually update the visualizations in a non-code manner.
Communication of an architecture is partly an artistic exercise. The job is to communicate the meaningful parts for the audience and context, and simplify or gloss over entirely the unnecessary details.
Sure you could invest in code generation for said art, but it’s still distinct from the code it represents. Whether you should make that investment in optimization is uniquely a value prop of how important it is that THAT piece of art is always up-to-date + how hard it is to manually update the visualizations in a non-code manner.
So… maybe?