I was a bit surprised by this. Unless this was originally meant to be printed I can't see why a simple animation couldn't have been included.

It's essentially pointing out the biggest issue with the article and then shrugging it off, while obviously putting a lot of effort into the writing.

That would be extra work, maybe enough the article would not be published. I will take what we got.

Or you could post GIFs yourself. Maybe that seems like too much work?

I am very happy with what we got, as I wrote in another comment. I still find it strange that the author would go out of his way to write the article, produce screenshots, write multiple times how it's hard to explain or show without an animation, yet not record one.

Asking whether I'm willing to provide my own gif isn't quite a fair measure. The author has the code running and he himself commented on the need for moving pictures. I have partial code and no personal investment in this.

I have however written a few articles about stuff I've done for my own work and wherever it seemed relevant I've taken the time to produce and include video. That's been a lot less effort than writing the text, even when it's required a number of changes in the scenes and code.

Here is an article that explains subpixel precision, with animations that show the effect.

https://kristoffer-dyrkorn.github.io/triangle-rasterizer/

Thanks, I had no idea what was meant by sub-pixel, starting from section 6 of your link will explain this and show the smoothed animation.

(By sub-pixel they mean more finely determining the endpoints of the lines on an arbitrary grid finer than the output pixels — NOT physical display sub-pixels.)