Since lately I've been thinking about where my development platform is heading, I've also been thinking about what sort of user environment such a platform would have. In particular, I wondered: if I was willing to give up existing software, what API would I like the software I write in the future to have? Here's one rathole I spent some time in recently.
It's historically been hard on Linux to make animations look good. For example Chrome has a number of animations in it (creating a new tab, starting a download) and they all stutter. Ideally an app like Chrome would render frames exactly at the rate the screen could support them, but as far as I know there is no way to get that kind of information on X (you can tell whether the server's accepted your drawing commands, but you can't tell whether those commands have actually flushed or whether you're rendering too slowly).
So instead, the internal Chrome animation API has the caller specify the frame rate and Chrome outputs frame at that rate, which means it's pretty much always wrong. (If you're on Linux, try creating a new tab in Chrome and look at the animation: it's frankly terrible.) The proper API would instead be implicit: you provide a function that computes the frame that should be rendered at time t, and the animation system calls that exactly when appropriate, at a perfect frame rate if possible or dropping frames when the system is loaded.
This implicit approach is the approach taken by Clutter and Core
Animation, but they differ in an interesting way. Clutter, like most
GMainLoop-based software, runs the animation loop as part of the
main loop. If your code blocks anywhere, animations stutter. In
fact, they provide some one-off APIs for some asynchronous
operations -- in the particular common case of wanting to load
an image into a texture, you can set a flag that causes Clutter to use
a background thread for it.
(I'm not familiar with it, but it appears Android also uses the Clutter model. Combine that with how frequently the Android API has you making blocking calls on the wrong thread, it doesn't surprise me how janky Android animations frequently are. For example on my Nexus S when I launch gmail the app load animation occasionally stutters...)
Core Animation, as used on Apple devices, appears to use a different model. (Important disclaimer: I've never used Core Animation, I've just read their docs. I'd love to be corrected on mistakes I've made here.) Your main application event loop issues requests for animations and can block however it wants, while a separate thread internal to Core Animation keeps animations progressing.
This prompts the interesting question of how synchronization is handled. Aside from just the immediate concern of how data is locked between your thread and the Core Animation thread, consider starting two animations at the same time that are intended to run in parallel: if the API for starting an animation grabbed a lock for each call, you could imaginably get unlucky and have the animator thread start up the first animation before your thread got a chance to start the second animation. The animations would be out of sync. It appears Core Animation requests are buffered into transactions which are then flushed to the animation thread either implicitly as your main loop iterates or explicitly via a transaction API. (I provide this example mostly to note that getting this stuff right is more complex than just "let me provide a function on how I want my stuff to fly around".)
Those two models are significantly different. In Clutter, you're expected to never block, and push off all blocking operations into another thread. In Core Animation, it seems it's ok to occasionally block your main thread.
This difference reminds me of the threads vs nonblocking events debate again. Lately I've come to believe that both are appropriate for different circumstances; this talk by Russ Cox is pretty convincing. In the case of animations, I worry that at 60fps you only get 16ms per frame which means in the Clutter model if you ever take more than that, even in CPU-bound code, your animation will skip. (It is interesting to contrast this with the equivalent problem in a node.js app: it is perhaps acceptable for an HTTP request to get delayed by 10ms or so if the CPU is already completely in use by some other request; but in the animation case, that is completely unacceptable.)
With both Russ's talk and my recent post about Haskell on my mind, I sat down to attempt to sketch out an API of my own. I'll save you the exposition about what the past weeks have been spent on and summarize the two major points of effort.
One is that just getting pixels on the screen in a
hardware-accelerated, vsynced, non-flickery manner on Linux is a
terrible mess; every time I thought I've gotten a handle on Xrender vs
GL or EGL vs GLX or DRI vs nVidia, I discover the three
differently-supported OpenGL extensions for vsyncing or the DRM vsync
interface and the X server's notion of vsync, or how the Intel GL
driver apparently only vsyncs only if the window is larger than
somewhere around 80% of the screen size, or how there's more to learn
about DRI and AIGLX and
$LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT and nVidia's
$__GL_YIELD. I can sorta sometimes make things work on one computer
but I have no confidence that any of my code will work elsewhere.
The second major point of discovery is that an API for doing animations in a natural way is likely going to be language-specific. I had thought that maybe I could construct a C layer and wrap that from my language du jour, but in practice buffering updates between threads is quite pleasant in Go or in Haskell in similar but slightly different ways that rely on garbage collection and threading-related primitives. For example, I think Core Animation has a lot of machinery in it to noun-ify in Objective-C objects concepts that would work better as closures. Instead, I think the right primitive library just manages images (textures) and putting them on-screen, while it's up to a library in the host language to do animations right.
Recently I've been fretting about how GL calls must happen on the same thread as X calls and Xlib is not threadsafe, which means all UI interaction needs to be proxied through the same thread that is managing the screen updates. It is a path that leads to madness (like: Xlib itself has all these calls that block on the X server). And in the nVidia world it appears their libgl is rather Xlib-specific (that is, not even xcb will work; it appears they've released EGL drivers for Tegra only(?)) so there's no getting away from it.
In all, I feel like I've been writing code in circles and I haven't made much progress, so I'm considering abandoning the whole thing. Maybe some person smarter than me can navigate the graphics world more effectively. But then I showed my cute demos of images flying around with flicker-free perfect low-CPU-usage rendering and some friends oohed and aahed appropriately so I haven't given up completely yet. I'll probably let it stew for a bit in my subconscious before trying again.