[brlcad]

Not entirely true. As an explicit edit method, sure, but several of the big-name non-parametric (i.e., solid modeling) commercial CAD systems are fundamentally still CSG representation under the hood. They just hide it well, typically under the guise of feature edit nomenclatures or editing constraints.

Can find indications it's CSG under the hood if it won't let you directly modify a surface without selecting some "convert to editable representation" option. TinkerCAD is an extreme example that's basically a pure CSG modeler (and probably the most popular CAD system to date, but I digress), but you won't find the term union, intersection, or CSG anywhere in its GUI. Solidworks and NX do a really good job hiding it.

[blobfish01]

I guess we have a disconnect. I am talking about modeling kernel geometric definitions and data structures. Whether NX has or doesn't have the boolean terms (union, intersect ...etc) doesn't change the fact that parasolid is BRep. Just because parasolid supports boolean operations, doesn't mean it is CSG.

IMHO: Any shape defined by a CSG modeling kernel can be defined in a BRep modeling kernel. The reverse is not true, short of some kind of 'hack'. BOT(bag of triangles)? Hybrid with mesh modeling?