I’d say no because there are different goals that can be incompatible, i.e., “perfect” is not well defined. This article’s focus is on accuracy and speed but no

I’d say no because there are different goals that can be incompatible, i.e., “perfect” is not well defined. This article’s focus is on accuracy and speed but not visual quality. Antialiasing goes for visual quality and sometimes speed, but most techniques land in an area that balances those or leans a bit one way or the other, while very few techniques are achieving the known maxima of either, let alone both at the same time. Sibling comment mentions the famous paper “A Pixel is Not a Little Square”. The implication being that using squares when computing analytic coverage for antialiasing is not “perfect”. The problem is we don’t have a single definition of perfect, because it depends on what display device you’re using. CRTs and LCDs and printers all have completely different ‘pixels’, so no single solution exists that works for all of them. Combine that with the fact that getting close to perfect for any given device is very computationally expensive, and you can see why we don’t usually even shoot for perfect.