By the specificness and choice of words, it sounds like a critique with more than one supposed recipient. Curiously, it's the kind I am interested in, though it reads damning, and maybe at that a bit too sweepingly general on the issue. The question here is scale of employment and goals of construction. Certainly it is an option that can have some good case of usage in the right measure. For example, organic forms, often related to round-ish shapes can profit of 45° in *micro*-optimizations of the "linework"'s "breaking points" for just a tad cleaner impression without actually defining shape in total; and many of mankind's artificial products, some of the most useful, ingenious and fascinating among them, even very much rely on diagonal 90° macro shape. So as an option it can make a strong case when supported properly for the right occasion. And that is not even to mention the problem beyond pixel art, that in another medium sufficiently approximating such shape, like a classic roof-top, or the edge of a blade, or the wings of a plane, via proper 90°s can be too costly in computation. Just some thoughts, my apologies for hijacking your thread, Mr.Beast. Cool crow.
