Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a conceptual question and believe Stack Overflow may be a great place to ask it. Often in my reading and learning I hear conversation of "layers" - and loosely defined layers, at that, it seems. Too, a lot of software jargon is used in describing these layers (so, for an entry-level guy or gal (like me), they each become difficult to get a grasp of).
So far, I have heard tell of three (3) layers that interact with each other and that make a program "run":
Business Logic Layer (BLL) - Wikipedia's got a great introductory article to this/
Application Logic Layer - that which is responsible for enabling the business logic layer to interact with boundary technologies
Presentation Layer (the layer I just learned of, today).
Here's my question (and it may not be possible to answer): how many of these layer "types" exist and - briefly - what are they?
I also encourage posting resources via hyperlink that people can consult, particularly as these layers do seem to be so loosely defined.
In this particular case, the layers are essentially a generalization of the Model View Controller system architecture. Briefly, they are:
BLL: The 'guts' of the application, if you will. This is the logic that works on your own internal data types and does, as the name suggests, the 'business logic' that makes your application actually work. It should be as independent as possible from any particular implementation of how the user might interact with the business logic. For example, if you were building a Tic Tac Toe game, the BLL would be the rules engine that does the actual work of tracking people's moves, determining who wins, etc.
ALL: The 'interface' between the BLL and all of the stuff that feeds data into the BLL. This is going to be much more specific to a particular application of the BLL. For example, if your Tic Tac Toe engine had the ability to save out the results of games, the ALL might provide an interface to a database engine that stores the results. It would also be responsable for interfacing the BLL with whatever PL you chose to use (text based, a GUI, etc).
PL: This is the 'front end' of your application that the user interacts with. This could be built from a complicated framework like Qt, or something simple like a text interface. Either way, it's generally completely independent in terms of implementation from the application it's trying to expose. To continue the Tic Tac Toe analogy, you could build a relatively generic 3x3 grid with shapes and a message output that just happens, via the ALL, to wind up displaying a Tic Tac Toe game. Now in practice they're rarely that decoupled, but the point is that you should try and keep any actual logic out of the PL, such that you can change the implementation of the BLL or ALL without having to touch your PL code as long as the interfaces stay the same.
These layers are loosely defined because they're just generalizations used to make visualizing the design of complex systems easier to reason about and to naturally guide development towards proper compartmentalization of functionality for maximum code reuse and component swappability, as well as allowing for more easily performing formal Verification and Validation and other QA tasks. There are many, many ways you can split up software design into 'layers', but these three are the ones that are typically formally described in Soft Eng course material. So there isn't really any specific 'number of layers' that you can talk about. How segmented a particular design is really depends on that specific domain and the 'buzzwords' in the industry at the time. You will however almost always find something akin to these three layers, sometimes broken into a few smaller chunks.
It is strange to me that the three concepts you list should be called "layers". They may be three components of a software system but they don't appear to lie on top of each other except in a crude PowerPoint block diagram.
The idea of layering relates to levels of abstraction in code development where lower layers provide the components used to build higher layers. The OSI model is a paradigm example.
There can be any number of layers in a particular software system depending on how many levels of dependency exist. Perhaps there are only one or two layers within the immediate application being developed, though that application is likely to be dependent on a larger stack of assumed sub-structure.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
In my spare time I program games as a hobby, different sorts of things and currently nothing very complex. Things likes 2d shooters, Tile-Based games, Puzzle Games, etc...
However as the development of these games goes on I find it becomes hard to manage the complexity of different subsystems within the games, things like Interface, World View/Model, Event Handling, States (Menu's, Pause, etc...), Special Effects and so on.
I attempt to keep the connections to a minimum and reduce coupling however many of these systems need to talk in one way or another that doesn't require holding your entire code-base in your head at one time.
Currently I try to delegate different subsystems and subsystem functions to different objects that are aggregated together however I haven't found a communication strategy that is decoupled enough.
What sort of techniques can I use to help me juggle all of these different subsystems and handle the complexity of an ever increasing system that needs to be modular enough to facilitate rapid requirements change?
I often find myself asking the same questions:
How do objects communicate with each other?
Where should the code that handles specific subsystems go?
How much of my code base should I have to think about at one time?
How can I reduce coupling between game entities?
Ah, if only there were a good answer to your question. Then game development wouldn't be nearly as difficult, risky, and time-consuming.
I attempt to keep the connections to a
minimum and reduce coupling however
many of these systems need to talk in
one way or another that doesn't
require holding your entire code-base
in your head at one time.
They do, but often they don't need to talk in quite as direct a way as people first believe. For example, it's common to have the game state push values into its GUI whenever something changes. If instead you can just store values and let the GUI query them (perhaps via an observer pattern), you have then removed all GUI references from the game state. Often it's enough to simply ask whether a subsystem can pull the information it needs from a simple interface instead of having to push the data in.
How do objects communicate with each other?
Where should the code that handles specific subsystems go?
How much of my code base should I have to think about at one time?
How can I reduce coupling between game entities?
None of this is really specific to games, but it's a problem that arises often with games because there are so many disparate subsystems that we've not yet developed standard approaches to. If you take web development then there are really just a small number of established paradigms: the "one template/code file per URI" of something like PHP, or maybe the "model/view-template/controller" approach of RoR, Django, plus a couple of others. But for games, everybody is rolling their own.
But one thing is clear: you can't solve the problem by asking 'How do objects communicate'. There are many different types of object and they require different approaches. Don't try and find one global solution to fit every part of your game - input, networking, audio, physics, artificial intelligence, rendering, serialisation - it's not going to happen. If you try to write any application by trying to come up with a perfect IObject interface that will suit every purpose then you'll fail. Solve individual problems first and then look for the commonality, refactoring as you go. Your code must first be usable before it can be even considered to be reusable.
Game subsystems live at whatever level they need to, no higher. Typically I have a top level App, which owns the Graphics, Sound, Input, and Game objects (among others). The Game object owns the Map or World, the Players, the non-players, the things that define those objects, etc.
Distinct game states can be a bit tricky but they're actually not as important as people assume they are. Pause can be coded as a boolean which, when set, simply disables AI/physics updates. Menus can be coded as simple GUI overlays. So your 'menu state' merely becomes a case of pausing the game and showing the menu, and unpausing the game when the menu is closed - no explicit state management required.
Reducing coupling between game entities is pretty easy, again as long as you don't have an amorphous idea of what a game entity is that leads to everything needing to potentially talk to everything. Game characters typically live within a Map or a World, which is essentially a spatial database (among other things) and can ask the World to tell it about nearby characters and objects, without ever needing to hold direct references to them.
Overall though you just have to use good software development rules for your code. The main thing is to keep interfaces small, simple, and focused on one and only one aspect. Loose coupling and the ability to focus on smaller areas of the code flows naturally from that.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
In my experience, UI programming is very time consuming, expensive (designers, graphics, etc) and error prone - and by definition UI bugs or glitches are very visible embarasing.
What do you do to mitigate this problem?
Do you know of a solution that can automatically convert an API to a user interface (preferably a Web user interface?).
Probably something like a JMX console
with good defaults
can be tweaked with css
where fields can be configured to be radio button or drop down list, text field or text area, etc
localizable
etc
Developing UI is time consuming and error-prone because it involves design. Not just visual or sound design, but more importantly interaction design. A good API is always interaction model neutral, meaning it puts minimal constraints on actual workflow, localisation and info representation. The main driver behind this is encapsulation and code re-use.
As a result it is impossible to extract enough information from API alone to construct a good user interface tailored to a specific case of API use.
However there are UI generators that normally produce CRUD screens based on a given API. Needless to say that such generated UI's are not very well-suited for frequent users with demands for higher UI efficiency, nor are they particularly easy to learn in case of a larger system since they don't really communicate system image or interaction sequence well.
It takes a lot of effort to create a good UI because it needs to be designed according to specific user needs and not because of some mundane API-UI conversion task that can be fully automated.
To speed the process of building UI up and mitigate risks it is possible to suggest either involving UI professionals or learning more about the job yourself. Unfortunatelly, there is no shortcut or magic wand, so to speak that will produce a quality UI based entirely and only on an API without lots of additional info and analysis.
Please also see an excellent question: "Why is good UI design so hard for some developers?" that has some very insightful and valuable answers, specifically:
Shameless plug for my own answer.
Great answer by Karl Fast.
I don't believe UI programming is more time consuming than any other sort of programming, nor is it more error prone. However, bugs in the UI are often more obvious. Spotting an error in a compiler is often much more tricky.
One clear difference between UI programming is that you have a person at the other end, instead of another program, which is very often the case when you're writing compilers, protocol parsers, debuggers, and other code which talks to other programs and computers. This means that the entity you're communicating with is not well-specified and may behave very erratically.
EDIT: "unpredictable" is probably a more appropriate term. /Jesper
Your question of converting an API to a user interface just doesn't make sense to me. What are you talking about?
Looks like you are looking for the 'Naked Objects' Architectual pattern. There are various implementations available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_objects
I'm not providing a solution, but I'll attempt to answer the why.
So I don't speak for everyone, but for me at least, I believe one reason is because programmers tend to concentrate on functionality more so than usability and they tend not to be too artistic. I think they just tend to have a different type of creativity. I find that it takes me a long to time to create the right graphics, compared to how long it takes me to write the code (Though, for the most part, I haven't done any projects with too many graphical requirements).
Automatically generating user interfaces may be possible to some extent, in that it can generate controls for the required input and output of data. But UI design is much more involved than simply putting the required controls onto a screen. In order to create a usable, user friendly UI, knowledge from disciplines such as graphics design, ergonomics, psychology, etc. has to be combined. There is a reason that human-computer interaction is becoming a discipline of its own: its not trivial to create a decent UI.
So I don't think there's a real solution to your problem. UI design is a complex task that simply takes time to do properly. The only area where it is relatively easy to win some time is with the tooling: if you have powerful tools to implement the design of the user interface, you don't have to hand-code every pixel of the UI yourself.
You are absolutely correct when you say that UI is time consuming, costly and error prone!
A great compromise I have found is as follows...
I realized that a lot of data (if not most) can be presented using a simple table (such as a JTable), rather than continuously try to create custom panels and fancy GUI's. It doesn't seem obvious at first, but it's quite decent, usable and visually appealing.
Why is it so fast? Because I was able to create a reusable framework which can accept a collection of concrete models and with little to no effort can render all these models within the table. So much code-reuse, its unbelievable.
By adding a toolbar above the window, my framework can add to, remove from or edit entries in the table. Using the full power of JTables, I can hide (by filtering) and sort as needed by extending various classes (but only if/when this is required).
I find myself reusing a heck of a lot of code every time I want to display and manage new models. I make extensive use of icons (per column, rows or cells, etc) to beautify the screens. I use large icons as a window header to make each screen 'appear' different and appealing and it always looks like new and different screens, but its always the same code behind them.
A lot of work and effort was required at first to do the framework, but now its paying off big time.
I can write the GUI for an entirely new application with as many as 30 to 50 different models, consisting of as many screens in a fraction of the time it would take me using the 'custom UI method'.
I would recommend you evaluate and explore this approach!
if you already know or could learn to use Ruby on Rails, ActiveScaffold is excellent for this.
One reason is that we don't have a well-developed pattern for UTDD - User Test Driven Development. Nor have I seen many good examples of mapping User Stories to Unit Tests. Why, for example, do so few tutorials discuss User Stories?
ASP.NET Dynamic Data is something that you should investigate. It meets most, if not all your requirements
It's hard because most users/customers are dumb and can't think straight! :)
It's time consuming because UI devs/designers are so obsessive-compulsive! :)
I have been asked to investigate porting Wii games and some (Sony) PSOne games to OpenGL ES (can you guess what platform?).
I have never undertaken a game port like this before (and will be hiring someone to do it) but I'd like to understand the process.
Does the Wii use OpenGL? If not what does it use and how easy is it to port to OpenGL / OpenGL ES?
Are there any resources/books/blogs that will help me in understanding the process?
Will my company have to become an official Wii developer? If so where do I start that process?
Porting from the Wii or the PSOne is a complex and involved task that can be broken down into multiple separate engineering efforts working in parallel to produce a working end product. The best possible thing you can do before moving to the target hardware is to compartmentalize all of the non-portable code while ensuring that the game continues to run as expected. When you commit to moving to the new platform, your effort switches to reimplementing the non-portable compartmentalized parts.
So, to answer your question, yes, you will need to become or work with a Sony and Nintendo licensed developer in order to take this approach. In the case of Sony, I don't even know if they offer a PSOne development program anymore which presents issues. Your Sony account rep can help clarify.
The major subsystems that are likely to be the focus of your porting effort are:
Rendering Graphics code contains fundamental assumptions about the hardware it is being run on in order to perform optimally. API-level compatibility is superficial compatibility and does not get you as much as you may hope it does. Plan on finding the entry point to the renderer and determining what data you need to render a scene and rewriting all the render code from there for your target hardware.
Game Saving Game state serialization and archival will need to be separated out. Older games often fwrite() structs with #pragma packed fields. Is that still going to work for you?
Networking Wii games write to high level services that are unavailable on your target hardware. At the low level, sockets are still sockets. What network services do your Wii games rely on?
Controls From where you are coming from to where you are going, anything short of a full redesign or reimagining of input will result in poor reviews of the software.
Memory Management Console games often make fundamental assumptions about the rate the system software returns memory from the heap, how much fragmentation it will cause and the duration the game needs to operate under these conditions. These memory management assumptions are obsolete on the new platform. It is wise to write your own memory manager that provides a cushion from the operating system. Also, console games compiled for release are stripped of most error handling and don't gracefully handle running out of memory-- just a heads up.
Content Your bottleneck will be system memory. Can you fit the necessary assets into memory? With textures, you can reduce mip where necessary and with graphics hardware timing, you can pull in the far clipping plane. With assets resident in memory, you may need a technical artist to go through and reduce the face density of your models or an animation programmer to implement a more size-friendly animation codec. This is very game specific.
You also run into the standard set of problems with things like bit compatibility (though the Wii and PSOne are both 32-bit), compiler idiosyncrasies, build script incompatibilities and proprietary compiler extensions.
Games are relatively challenging to test. A good rule of thumb is you want to have enough testers on your team to run through the game in a maximum of two days, covering all major aspects of play. In games that take a long time to beat (RPGs with 30+ hours of gameplay), your testing team needs to be quite large to offer full coverage. Because you are just doing a port, you can come up with a testing plan that maximizes coverage of your new code without having a testing team punch every wall in your game to make sure it (still) has clipping. The game shipped once.
Becoming a licensed developer requires you to apply. The turnaround time, from experience, is not good. Generally speaking, priority is given to studios with shipped titles and organized offices with reasonably good security and the ability to buy the (relatively) expensive development kits. You may be better off working with a licensed developer if you do not meet these criteria.
Console and game development is challenging for people already experienced in it. There is no book that covers it all. My recommendation is to attempt to recruit an expert who has experience shipping titles in a position of systems or engine programmer. What types of programmers and skillsets exist in games is a whole different question for Stack, though.
Games consoles don't use OpenGL but their own, custom libraries. The main reason is that they are pretty slow and have little RAM. So you need to squeeze out every drop of performance you can get. And that means: Custom code. Usually, you get a framework with the developer kit which gets you started and then, you build your code from that. Eventually, you'll start replacing parts from the developer kit with your own special code to get all the speed and special effects you need.
There is a reason why PSOne games are so ugly on the PS3 despite the fact that the developers have access to the sources: Revenue just doesn't justify to touch the code.
Which is one reason why game development is so expensive: Every game is (more or less) a completely new product. Sometimes, game companies can reuse a bit of code from the last version but more often than not, they have to develop everything again. They also don't talk much with each other.
In recent years, kits have become more complex and powerful and you can get complete game engines (with all kinds of effects and 3D support) but each engine is a completely different kind of beast, so you can't even copy code from engine A to B.
Today, media content (video, audio and render sequences) are so expensive that the actual game engine is often a minor detail, so this isn't going to change any time soon.
Net result: If you want to port a game, write an emulator for the hardware (which is usually pretty simple and allows you to run all kinds of games).
[EDIT] To develop software for the Wii, see here: http://www.warioworld.com/
For a Wii emulator, see http://wiiemulator.net/
I ported a couple of games, when I was a new game programmer, from working with one version of our engine to a newer version (where backwards compatibility was neither ignored nor pursued). Even copying (and possibly renaming) the files and placing them in a home in the new project was a bit of work. Following that, the procedure was:
recompile
fix many of the hundreds of errors [in many places, with the same error occurring over and over again]
and
"wire up" calls from the new game engine to the appropriate calls in the old code
"wire up" function calls from the old code into the new game engine
deal with other oddities (ex. in the old game engine, the 2d game would "swizzle" textures itself; in the new version, the engine did it (on specific platforms))
and, while I don't recall this clearly, it was probably mixed in with a bunch of #ifdeffing out portions of code so the thing would actually compile, and possibly creating function stubs to be filled in later.
As I recall, it was three or four days until I had something that compiled. (But, it did help when we ported other games from the old version to the new one!)
The magnitude of the task will come down to what the code you are getting is like. If it has generic 3D calls that you can intercept -- add a thunking layer to -- then you are in business. It depends on the level of abstraction in the code. If it is well-behaved and has things like "RenderModel" and "RenderWorld" calls, you can replace those functions, and even the structures that they work with. If drawing is occurring all over the place, and calls are more like "Draw Polygon" and "Draw Line" or "Draw using this highly optimised data structure", then you are likely in for a long slog.
You shouldn't need a Wii dev kit. Sometimes it is nice to verify that the code you are given does indeed compile in the original environment (and matches the shipping code!), but sometimes you can just take it on faith and make it work in its new environment.
Lastly, I don't think the Wii uses OpenGL, and I really don't know where to point you for further help.
What you may want to do is to start with designing the architecture of the game, write up a detailed specification for what the new game is like.
Once you have this, since you will be rewriting the code, you may find that some of the business logic that doesn't deal with the console can be ported over. But, anything dealing with I/O, user interaction or graphics/sounds will be rewritten, so you might as well do that from scratch.
A specification is very important, to make certain that you know how the current game is working so that the new port will give the same user experience, if that is what is desired.
You may want to keep the same bugs, if that is part of the experience, as, if I know that in the Wii I can jump down and bounce off the wall to safely land, then if I can't do that in the new version then that may be bothersome.
Well porting a PS1 game to an iPhone would be quite a task they work in very different ways. I'm sure its doable but it will be a LOT of work to replace all the fixed point maths and lack of Z-Buffer based rendering to a real graphics chip.
Wii would be a lot easier. The Wii API is very similar to OpenGL. However the Wii has some very nice fixed function features that just are not available on any other GL based platform. Should be doable, though ...
I'm not really sure I can say anything more than that. Have signed far too many NDAs over the years to be 100% sure of what I can and cannot say ;)
Still if you want to hire someone to do some porting work and are prepared to supply the required hardware then I might be free ;)
All you Stackoverflowers,
I was wondering why GUI code is responsible for sucking away many, many cpu cycles. In principle, the graphical rendering is far less complex than Doom (although most corporate GUIs will introduce lots of window dressing). The event handling layer is also seemingly a heavy cost, however, it seems that a well-written implementation should switch between contexts efficiently on modern processors with a lot of memory/cache.
If anybody has run a profiler on their big GUI application, or a common API itself, I'm interested in where the bottlenecks lie.
Possible explanations (that I imagine) may be:
High levels of abstraction between hardware and application interface
Lots of levels of indirection to the correct code to execute
Low priority (compared to other processes)
Misbehaving applications flooding API with calls
Excessive object orientation?
Complete poor design choices in API (not just issues, but design philosophy)
Some GUI frameworks are much better than others, so I'd like to hear varied perspectives. For example, the Unix/X11 system is much different than Windows and even than WinForms.
Edit: Now a community wiki - go for it. I have one more thing to add -- I'm an algorithms guy in school and would be interested if there are inefficient algorithms in GUI code and which they are. Then again, it's probably just the implementation overhead.
I've no idea generally, but I'd like to add another item to your list - font rendering and calculations. Finding vector glyphs in a font and converting them to bitmap representations with anti-aliasing is no small task. And often it needs to be done twice - first to calculate the width/height of the text for positioning, and then actually drawing the text at the right coordinates.
Also, most drawing code today relies on clipping mechanisms to update just a part of the GUI. So, if just one part needs to be redrawn, the code actually redraws the whole window behind the scenes, and then takes just the needed part to actually update.
Added:
In the comments I found this:
I'm also very interested in this. It can't be that the gui is rendered using only the cpu because if you don't have proper drivers for your gfx-card, desktop graphics render incredibly slow. If you have gfx-drivers however desktop-gfx go kinda fast but never as fast as a directx/opengl app.
Here's the deal as I understand it: every graphic card out there today supports a generic interface for drawing. I'm not sure if it's called "VESA", "SVGA", or if those are just old names from the past. Anyway, this interface involves doing everything through interrupts. For every pixel there is an interrupt call. Or something like that. The proper VGA driver however is able to take advantage of DMA and other enhancements that make the whole process WAY less CPU-intensive.
Added 2: Ah, and for OpenGL/DirectX - that's another feature of today's graphics cards. They are optimized for 3D operations in exclusive mode. That's why the speed. The normal GUI just utilizes basic 2D drawing procedures. So it gets to send the contents of the whole screen every time it wants an update. 3D applications however send a bunch of textures and triangle definitions to the VRAM (video-RAM) and then just reuse them for drawing. They just say something like "take the triangle set #38 with the texture set #25 and draw them". All these things are cached in the VRAM so this is again way faster.
I'm not sure, but I would suspect that the modern 3D-accelerated GUIs (Vista Aero, compiz on Linux, etc.) also might take advantage of this. They could send common bitmaps to the VGA up front and then just reuse them directly from the VRAM. Any application-drawn surfaces however would still need to be sent directly every time for updates.
Added 3: More ideas. :) The modern GUI's for Windows, Linux, etc. are widget-oriented (that's control-oriented for Windows speakers). The problem with this is that each widget has its own drawing code and associated drawing surface (more or less). When the window needs to get redrawn, it calls the drawing code for all its child-widgets, who in turn call the drawing code for their child-widgets, etc.. Every widget redraws its whole surface, even though some of it is obscured by other widgets. With above mentioned clipping techniques some of this drawn information is immediately discarded to reduce flickering and other artifacts. But still it's lots of manual drawing code that includes bitmap blitting, stretching, skewing, drawing lines, text, flood-filling, etc.. And all this gets translated to a series of putpixel calls that get filtered through clipping filters/masks and other stuff. Ah, yes, and alpha blending has also become popular today for nice effects which means even more work. So... yes, you could say this is because of lots of abstraction and indirection. But... could you really do it any better? I don't think so. Only 3D techniques might help, because they take advantage of GPU for alpha-calculations and clipping.
Let's begin by saying that writing libraries is much harder than writing a stand-alone code. The requirement that your abstraction be reusable in as many contexts as possible, including contexts which you haven't though of yet, makes the task challenging even for experienced programmers.
Amongst libraries, writing a GUI toolkit library is a famously difficult problem. This is because the programs which use GUI libraries range over a very wide variety of domains with very different needs. Mr Why and Martin DeMollo discussed the requirements placed of GUI libraries a little while ago.
Writing GUI widgets themselves is difficult because computer users are very sensitive minute details of the behavior of the interface. Non-native widget never feel right, don't they? In order to get non-native widget right -- in order to get any widget right, in fact -- you need to spend an inordinate amount of time tweaking the details of the behavior.
So, GUI are slow because of the inefficiencies introduced by the abstraction mechanisms used to create highly-reusable components, that added to shortness of time available to optimize the code once so much time has been spent just getting the behavior right.
Uhm, that's quite a lot.
The most simple but probably obvious answer is that the programmers behind these GUI apps, are really bad programmers. You can go along way in writing code which does the most bizarre things and it will be faster but few people seem to care how to do this or they deem it to be an expensive non-profitable time wasted effort.
To set things straight off-loading computations to the GPU won't necessarily fix any problems. The GPU is just like the CPU except it's less general purpose and more a data paralleled processor. It can do graphics computations exceptionally well. Whatever graphics API/OS and driver combination you have doesn't really matter that much... well OK, with Vista as an example, they changed the desktop composition engine. This engine is far better composting only that which has changed, and since the number one bottle neck for GUI apps is redrawing is a neat optimization strategy. This idea of virtualizing your computational needs and only update the smallest change every time.
Win32 sends WM_PAINT messages to windows when they need to be redrawn, this can be a result of windows occluding each other. However it's up to the window itself to figure out whats actually changed. More than so nothing did change or the change that was made was trivial enough so that it could have been just preformed on top of what ever top most surface you had.
This kind of graphics handling doesn't necessarily exist today. I would say that people have refrained from writing really efficient and virtualizing rendering solutions because the benefit/cost ration is rather low/high (bad).
Something Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) does, which I think is far superior to most other GUI API is that it splits layout updates and rendering updates into two separate passes. And while WPF is managed code the rendering engine is not. What happens with rendering is that the managed WPF rendering engine builds a command queue (this is what DirectX and OpenGL does) which is then handed of to the native rendering engine. What's a bit more elegant here is that WPF will then try to retain any computation which didn't change the visual state. A trick if you may, where you avoid costly rendering calls for things that doesn't have to be rendered (virtualizing).
In contrast to WM_PAINT which tells a Win32 window to repaint itself a WPF app would check what parts of that window requires repainting and only repaint the smallest change.
Now WPF is not supreme, it's a solid effort from Microsoft but it's not the holy grail yet... the code which runs the pipeline could still be improved and the memory footprint of any managed app is still more than I would want. But I hope this is the kind of answer you are looking for.
WPF is able to do some things asynchronously rather decent, which is a huge deal if you wanna make a really responsive low-latency/low-cpu UI. Asynchronous operations is more than off-loading work on a different thread.
To summarize things slow and expensive GUI means too much repainting and the kind of repainting which is very expensive i.e. the entire surface area.
I does to some degree depend on the language. You might have noticed that Java and RealBasic applications are a fair bit slower than their C-based (C++, C#, Objective-C) counterparts.
However GUI applications are much more complex than command line apps. The Terminal window needs only to draw a simple window that doesn't support buttons.
There are also multiple loops for extra inputs and features.
I think that you can find some interesting thoughts on this topic in "Window System Design: If I had it to do over again in 2002" by James Gosling (the Java guy, also known for his work on pre-X11 windowing systems). Available online here[pdf].
The article focuses on the positive side (how to make it fast), not on the negative side (what's making it slow), but it is still a good read on the topic.