Oh, you were asking why I said so? Because I have clicked the “notes document” link in the article, the OP used the same tiger test image as me, and that document has a couple of screenshots. And these were the only screenshots I have found. Compare them to screenshots of the same vector image rendered by my library, and you’ll see why I noted about the quality.
> Vrmacs draws paths by decomposing them into triangles, rendering them with the GPU rasterizer, and antialiasing edges using screen-space derivatives in the fragment shader.
More or less, but (a) not always, thin lines are different. (b) that’s a high-level overview but there’re many important details on the lower levels. For instance, “screen-space derivatives of what?” is an interesting question, critically important for correct and uniform stroke widths. The meshes I’m building are rotation-agnostic, and to some extent (but not completely) they are resolution-agnostic too.
> and it is perfectly capable of rendering high-quality small text on the GPU
It is, but the performance overhead is massive, compared to GPU rasterizer rendering these triangles. For real-world vector graphics that doesn’t have too much stuff per pixel that complexity is not needed because triangle meshes are good enough already.
> it looks like it occupies a sweet spot similar to NanoVG
They’re similarities, I have copy-pasted a few text-related things from my fork of NanoVG: https://github.com/Const-me/nanovg/ However, Vrmac delivers much higher quality of 2D vector graphics (VAA, circular arcs, thin strokes, etc), is much faster (meshes are typically reused across frames, I use more than 1 CPU core, and the performance-critical pieces are in C++ manually vectorized with NEON or SSE), and is more compatible (GL support on Windows or OSX is not good, you want D3D or Metal respectively).