Hi @Jithin!
Thanks for taking a look! I’m so glad you like the visualizations I shared 
And I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree that it’s essential to make the user-facing materials accessible to beginners. Fortunately, the p5.js community has set an amazing example for us to follow.
In the same way, I want to make the library accessible to potential contributors, which reminds me of a question I have. Maybe you or @two.ticks could answer it.
Background: As you pointed out in a previous message, one of the first priorities that @jesi-rgb and I have is to determine whether we can build on the p5.teach library. When I started looking into p5.teach a bit more, I noticed that it uses a different tech stack than p5.js. For example, it uses TypeScript instead of JavaScript, it uses Jest instead of Mocha/Chai for testing, and it uses TypeDoc instead of YUIDoc for generating docs.
Question: My initial concern is that using a different tech stack than p5.js will add extra friction for potential library contributors coming from the p5.js community. So, my question is, do you think this is a valid concern? I haven’t investigated this fully yet, so it’s entirely possible I’ve misunderstood something, or that there are other factors I haven’t considered.
The good news, I think, is that even if we have some design conflicts and decide to start a new repo, we could still possibly build on ideas from p5.teach and related projects.
Thanks again for your help!
Greg