Tag Archives: Programming

Starting Coding

Graham Lee’s “Why is programming so hard?” made me think about how I started programming and whether I’d be coding now if I was twelve.

When I began, I had a Sinclair Spectrum. Back then, home computers booted into a programming language (BASIC typically) and to do anything you needed to know at least one command. To be fair, even then many people didn’t get beyond J, Symbol Shift-P, Symbol Shift-P (‘LOAD “”‘, the command used to load a program from tape).

My first memory of using a Spectrum is trying to type in a program from the manual. This was harder than it sounds as the Spectrum had a weird-and-wonderful command entry system in lieu of a lexer in the BASIC interpreter. I can’t even remember if I got it working, but I was hooked.

I still played games, but I occasionally looked at something and thought “how do they do that?” I’d then try to replicate it. Over time I’d spend more time coding and less gaming. I’d also read magazines and type in code from books and magazines. Then as now, working with other peoples code can be very instructive.

(But, to answer the question in the original blog, I can’t really remember the process of going from a few lines of trivial code to something more complex.)

I think three things — at least — were appealing at the time.

First, I had one. I guess that sounds obvious but even a few years earlier that wouldn’t have been a given. Prior to my interest in computers, I was fascinated by cars. I could identify all the models on sight, memorised the statistics and could tell you that a new Ford Fiesta had terrible handling. But I didn’t really know any of the basics about actually driving as it would be another six years before I could get a provisional licence and start taking lessons. The possibility of owning a car was even more remote (I’ve still never owned one!). There’s a dramatic difference between reading about something and actually using it.

Secondly, it was possible to pretty much understand the whole machine, from the hardware right up to the BASIC interpreter. I didn’t, of course, but nothing seemed out of reach. I started in BASIC but I also played with Z80 assembler. The Spectrum was a simple enough machine that working at that level exposed a lot of what was happening with the hardware — interrupts, memory mapped hardware — even without breaking out a soldering iron.

Thirdly, even the state of the art seemed achievable. I was writing programs to fade text in from black to white and animating crude figures around the screen. What was Jet Set Willy but more of the same? (That’s a rhetorical question. In practice the difference was pretty substantial, but it was still one guy sitting alone at home.)

There was a learning curve but I thought that everything was understandable and figured that I could do even the hard stuff. This really spurred me on, made me try things and play around. There is no better way of learning; nothing kills my enthusiasm more than thinking I can’t solve a problem.

Fast forward to today and, while most people own a computer, the machines are not fully understandable and the state of the art seems distant and impossible for a mere mortal to achieve.

Look at a game that appears as simple as Monument Valley. It doesn’t take long to realise that it’s not that simple. Where would you even start? What would you need to understand just to put a few of your own pixels on screen?

I fear that I would get overwhelmed by the amount that I didn’t know — and possibly would never know — before I got interested enough to keep going.

So where is the “in” to programming these days?

It’s easy to get hung up on the programming language or environment, but I don’t think that’s the key. If it’s interesting people will put in the time to get past those kinds of obstacles. (Whether they should need to or not is another question.) Instead, we need projects that can start small and gradually get more complex, and they have to be in environments that the user understands, and the results need to look immediately impressive or be immediately useful.

This is why I don’t think learning to code in, say, Python is likely to be compelling for many people. It is programming, but few people use command lines any more and the results don’t look impressive. Printing the numbers from one to ten? Yawn.

Web programming is, perhaps, the obvious example. People start copy-and-pasting can graduate to writing code. Please don’t start the BASIC versus JavaScript debate in the comments.

I have heard about (but have no experience of) building “mods” for Minecraft. Much as I did, people play the game and get hooked. Rather than trying to replicate features, they try to modify them or enhance them.

Once people have left academia, the most popular method of starting programming that I’ve seen has been Excel. People start building complex spreadsheets, then add a few macros and then begin playing around with VBA. At each stage they can do a little more than they could before and at each stage it’s useful.

So, back to the original question: would I be programming now if I was twelve? I think the most likely route would be through something like Minecraft, but I never got hooked on anything more complicated than Bomb Jack so I have to think the answer would be no. For my own sanity I probably should think too hard whether or not that’s a good thing.

Swift Types

If you look at the Swift Language guide, you get the distinct impression that the type system is sleek and modern. However the more you dig into it the more eccentricities you find.

The one I’m going to look at today makes sense only if you look at the problem domain from a slightly skewed perspective. I’ve been trying to think whether this is a sensible, pragmatic way of designing a language or a mistake. Judge for yourself.

So, the feature. Let’s define a dictionary:

var test1 = [ "Foo" : "Bar" ]

Check the type and we find that it’s of type Dictionary<String,String>. The generics and type inference are doing exactly what you’d image.

test1["Test"] = "Works"

So basically it’s all good.

So, what type is this expression?

var test2 = [:]

And why does this not work?

test2["Test"] = "Doesn't work"

Let’s take a step back. What’s the problem? Well, [:] is an empty dictionary but give us no clue what the type is. Remember, Swift dictionaries and arrays use generics, so the compiler only allows objects of a particular type to be added.

A good guess for the type would be Dictionary<AnyObject,AnyObject>. But a little fishing around tells you that’s not the case because AnyObject is neither “Hashable” or “Equatable” and keys need to be both.

The answer? test2 is an NSDictionary. That is, in this one circumstance, Swift extends outside its native dictionary type and decides to use a class found in Foundation.

Once you know that, it is clear that the second line should be:

test2.setValue("Does work now", forKey:"Test")

Maybe if you’re familiar with the guts of both Objective C and Swift this behaviour makes sense, but a language built-in returning a completely different type just because it can’t figure out the type feels broken to me.

In the end I think I’ve convinced myself that, while it might be convenient to allow this syntax, it’s a bad idea to saddle the language with these semantics so early on. In a few years when no one uses Objective C or when Swift is no longer fully tied to Cocoa, will this make sense?

I would prefer to see it being a compiler error with the correct approach being explicit with the type:

var test2:Dictionary<String,String> = [:]

Thoughts?

Swift Hate

I’m seeing a surprising amount of vitriol aimed at Swift, Apple’s new programming language for iOS and Mac development. I understand that there can be reasoned debate around the features (or lack thereof), syntax and even the necessity of it but there can be little doubt about the outcome: if you want to consider yourself an iOS developer, it’s a language that you will need to learn.

The only variable I can think of is when you learn it.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to delay learning it as you have code to deliver now and because Swift is, well, very beta currently.

But asking what the point of Swift is not constructive. Asking what problems can be solved exclusively by Swift makes no sense at all you can do almost anything in most programming languages. Just because Intercal is Turing complete doesn’t mean that you’d want to use it for any real work. What varies between languages is what’s easy and what’s hard.

Objective-C undoubtedly makes some things easier than Swift. It’s a more dynamic language and its C foundations open up a lot of low-level optimisations that probably are not there in higher level languages.

But that same flexibility comes with a price: segmentation faults and memory leaks; pointers; easy-to-get-wrong switch statement; a lack of bounds checking. It also inherits a lot of ambiguity from original C language specification which makes certain automatic optimisations impossible.

How many applications require low-level optimisations more than safety? (And that’s ignoring that the biggest optimisations are usually found in designing a better algorithm or architecture.) How often is it better to have five lines of code instead of one? Every line is a liability, something that can go wrong, something that needs to be understood, tested and maintained.

Whatever its failings, it’s already clear that Swift is more concise and safer than Objective C.

There are absolutely applications where Objective C, C or C++ would be a better choice than Swift. It’s the old 80-20 rule applied to a programming language. And, for those resistant to learning a new language, the 80% is not on “your” side.

Right now, some of this requires a bit of a leap of faith. Swift clearly isn’t finished. You can either learn it now and potentially have some say on what the “final” version looks like, or you can learn it afterwards and just have to accept what’s there. But, either way, you’ll probably using it next year. Get used to it.

Learning Swift

Swift is a new programming language designed by Apple for development on OS X and iOS. I thought that I should try to learn it a little so I decided to convert a non-trivial collection of classes from one of my apps (www.cut) into Swift. I always find it better to work on a real project rather than just to play around with things aimlessly. Also, by re-working an old project, I knew that all the problems I would find would be language related rather than anything to do with the architecture.

The classes are also data related rather than being UI, so it is mostly a test of the language itself rather than how it interfaces with Objective C.

First impressions are good. Swift is mostly nice and consistent, which although sounding like damning with faint praise, is actually a compliment. I read a little of the language guide and dove straight in. A lot of the attempts to get the following right were me just typing stuff, guessing the syntax rather than looking it up.

Quite by accident I think my code sample inadvertently shows an area of strength for Objective-C and weakness for Swift.

The idea of the code is that it reads a Plist, instantiates a class based on that configuration and fills in a number of properties.

The first half of the code looks like this:

        NSError* error = nil;
        NSString *plistPath = [[NSBundle mainBundle] pathForResource:@"XXX" ofType:@"plist"];
        NSData *plistXML = [[NSFileManager defaultManager] contentsAtPath:plistPath];
        NSDictionary *temp = (NSDictionary *)[NSPropertyListSerialization propertyListWithData:plistXML
                                                                                       options:NSPropertyListMutableContainersAndLeaves
                                                                                        format:NULL
                                                                                         error:&error];
        NSArray* values = [temp objectForKey:@"Entries"];

This was pretty straight forward to convert into Swift, though the type system gave me issues:

    let plistPath =  NSBundle.mainBundle().pathForResource("XXX", ofType: "plist")
    let plistXML = NSFileManager.defaultManager().contentsAtPath(plistPath)
    var error:NSError? = nil
    var format:CMutablePointer<NSPropertyListFormat>? = nil
    let immutable:NSPropertyListReadOptions = 0
    var pList = NSPropertyListSerialization.propertyListWithData(plistXML,
        options:NSPropertyListReadOptions(NSPropertyListMutabilityOptions.Immutable.toRaw()),
        format:format!,
        error: &error) as NSDictionary

Getting the options property seems very clumsy; I’m sure that there must be a better way of doing it.

I had a real problem with the in/out parameters format and error. Not only was the documentation confusing but the Swift Playground kept crashing making it difficult to distinguish between what I was doing wrong and where the compiler itself was messing up. It’s also a bit odd that, though both are in/out parameters, that they both need different methods to extract the values.

(To be fair, this is a beta and it is the first version of a whole language and compiler. I mention the crashes not because they’re unexpected or even especially bad, just as an honest description of the difficulty I had.)

The next section, using the data in the plist, was much more problematic. The code looks like this, but I’ve trimmed a lot so what we have here isn’t terribly useful now!

        proxy = nil;
        for (NSDictionary* i in values) {
            if ([thing isEqualToString:[i objectForKey:@"Class"]]) {
                dynamicClass = NSClassFromString([i objectForKey:@"BaseClass"]);
                proxy = [[dynamicClass alloc] init];
            }
        }

I didn’t do the straight conversion. A few more years of Cocoa programming allowed me to notice an optimisation:

    let valueList = values.filteredArrayUsingPredicate(NSPredicate(format: "Class = %@", value))
    let valueData = valueList[0] as NSDictionary

This same approach would work in Objective-C.

Next I tried:

  let dynamicClass = NSClassFromString(valueData["BaseClass"])
  let proxy = dynamicClass()

The first line works as expected. The second line doesn’t compile.

Is there anything else that we can do with dynamicClass? Let’s see. It’s an AnyClass which is a type alias for AnyObject.Type. Which doesn’t really help.

I tried casting it to a base class but no matter what I tried I couldn’t alloc/init it (in Objective C terms).

Josh Smith figured out how to do it by creating a factory class in Objective-C.

I tried (and failed) to get it to work by calling some of the Objective-C runtime directly:

var bytes:Byte[] = [0,0,0,0]
let b = objc_constructInstance(a, &bytes)

But the second line doesn’t work when using ARC. (To be fair, Xcode struck through the definition so I didn’t have much confidence that it would work!)

So that leaves Josh’s call out to Objective-C to be the best method that I’m aware of.

In the end I just used a switch statement to select between the relatively limited number of options that I had to choose between. Not as clever, but maybe that’s a good thing?

NSFetchedResultsController and iCloud

This took me a while to figure out so I thought it was worth blogging about. The short version: I’m using Core Data with iCloud syncing and it works… mostly. When starting up for the first time – when there is already data in iCloud –  none of the data appears in a table view, but restarting the app correctly displays it.

I know what you’re thinking: you’re not merging the updates into the right managed object context. Nope. Sorry. Thinking that was the problem is probably why it took me quite so long to track the real problem down!

So, what does the problem look like?

I set up my Core Data stack in the app delegate. Part of that includes connecting to iCloud:

    NSURL *storeURL = [[self applicationDocumentsDirectory] URLByAppendingPathComponent:@"XXX.sqlite"];
    NSDictionary *options = @{
                              NSMigratePersistentStoresAutomaticallyOption: @YES,
                              NSInferMappingModelAutomaticallyOption: @YES,
                              NSPersistentStoreUbiquitousContentNameKey : @"XXX"
                              };
    NSError *error = nil;
    _persistentStoreCoordinator = [[NSPersistentStoreCoordinator alloc] initWithManagedObjectModel:[self managedObjectModel]];
    if (![_persistentStoreCoordinator addPersistentStoreWithType:NSSQLiteStoreType
                                                   configuration:nil
                                                             URL:storeURL
                                                         options:options
                                                           error:&error]) {

The app delegate passes the managed object context through to the main view controller which then uses it to create a NSFetchedResultsController:

    NSFetchRequest *fetchRequest = [[NSFetchRequest alloc] init];
    // Edit the entity name as appropriate.
    NSEntityDescription *entity = [NSEntityDescription entityForName:@"XXX" inManagedObjectContext:self.managedObjectContext];
    [fetchRequest setEntity:entity];
    // Set the batch size to a suitable number.
    [fetchRequest setFetchBatchSize:20];
    // Edit the sort key as appropriate.
    NSSortDescriptor *sortDescriptor = [[NSSortDescriptor alloc] initWithKey:@"someTimestamp" ascending:NO];
    NSArray *sortDescriptors = @[sortDescriptor];
    [fetchRequest setSortDescriptors:sortDescriptors];
    // Edit the section name key path and cache name if appropriate.
    // nil for section name key path means "no sections".
    NSFetchedResultsController *aFetchedResultsController = [[NSFetchedResultsController alloc] initWithFetchRequest:fetchRequest
                                                                                                managedObjectContext:self.managedObjectContext
                                                                                                  sectionNameKeyPath:nil
                                                                                                           cacheName:@"Master"];
    aFetchedResultsController.delegate = self;
    self.fetchedResultsController = aFetchedResultsController;
	NSError *error = nil;
	if (![self.fetchedResultsController performFetch:&error]) {
        // Replace this implementation with code to handle the error appropriately.
        // abort() causes the application to generate a crash log and terminate. You should not use this function in a shipping application, although it may be useful during development.
	    NSLog(@"Unresolved error %@, %@", error, [error userInfo]);
	    abort();
	}

(Again, this is pretty much Apple-standard boilerplate code –  nothing clever going on here.)

But what I found was that when there was already data in iCloud, the records did not automatically appear in the main view controller.

Eventually I found that this was not a threading issue – merging the changes into one context and trying to read them from another – by adding an explicit fetch request on a “debug” button. Doing this I could see the new data, even though the fetched result controller could not.

In my app delegate I listened for a number of notifications: NSPersistentStoreDidImportUbiquitousContentChangesNotification and NSPersistentStoreCoordinatorStoresWillChangeNotification. My expectation was that NSPersistentStoreCoordinatorStoresWillChangeNotification would fire before switching from the fallback store to the “real” one and NSPersistentStoreDidImportUbiquitousContentChangesNotification would fire when the new data was available.

I was half right. NSPersistentStoreCoordinatorStoresWillChangeNotification fired on a background thread, so I used GCD to ping it onto the main thread and reset the context.

But NSPersistentStoreDidImportUbiquitousContentChangesNotification didn’t fire at all. I guess the objects didn’t change as such, they just became available, which feels like a slightly false distinction to me.

So my next guess was to fire the fetch request again. The data was visible in the main threads context so surely this would find the data?

Nope. (And don’t call me Shirley.)

I was getting pretty lost at this point so I ended up just semi-randomly stopping the code and looking around in the debugger.

And, long story short, I realised that fetch requests have a reference to the persistent store in them – check out the affectedStores method. This meant that the NSFetchedResultsController was happily, and correctly, reporting on the empty and no longer used fallback store and completely ignoring the new and fully populated iCloud store.

The simple solution was to listen for the NSPersistentStoreCoordinatorStoresDidChangeNotification and create a completely new fetch request.

- (void)storesDidChange:(NSNotification*)notification {
    self.fetchedResultsController = nil;
    [NSFetchedResultsController deleteCacheWithName:@"Master"];
    [self.tableView reloadData];
}

(I did think of just adding the new persistent store to the old fetch request but I wasn’t sure that this would create the refresh anyway and, given the frequency with which this is likely to happen, I thought it would be cleaner just to start from scratch.)

These weird problems almost always boil down to just a couple of lines of code. This time was no exception.

What to do?

There have been a few blogs recently about people finding their true vocation and discovering that it’s not developing software. This is not a “me too” post. I do still develop software for a living and I don’t intend becoming a writer or anything else any time soon. But like most people (I assume) my career has taken turns that I never would have imagined when I started out.

In fact when I was at school I took quite some time trying very hard not to be a software developer for a living. I took geography rather than the rather more obvious (if you know me) chemistry because I wanted to be a pilot. I was so determined to keep programming computers as a hobby that I almost took woodwork instead of computer studies when I was fourteen.

Even when I went to university a few years later I tried (and failed) to read maths. After graduating with a Computer Science degree I fell into a job in software in many ways because I wasn’t sure what else to do.

If this sounds negative it’s because that’s what I was thinking at the time. With hindsight I’m glad that all the effort I spent avoiding my current career didn’t pay off.

The job I took turned out to be a lucky break in some respects. It was at a medium sized consulting company which allowed me to work in lots of different positions on lots of different projects in a relatively short period of time. The effect of this was that I was able to mentally break up the job “Software Developer” into aspects that previously I would have conflated.

What I learned is that I enjoy creating stuff more than managing people. That I’m better at sketching designs on a white-board than I am at testing the resulting code. That I like to make things that are useful rather than just architecturally beautiful. And that I like working with end users, even when they ask for the impossible or contradictory things. (Okay, not exactly at the time they request it but you get the idea.)

In practice this means that I seek out roles that are broader than a stereotypical developer1 and certainly require more than just coding. Hard-core developers may sneer at the fact that the most common job title I’ve had over the years is some variation on “Consultant” but I actually quite like that it means very little. Under the same title I’ve done everything from development to pre-sales consulting to business analysis.

The point, of course, is not that this is The Right career, only that considering “development” as a single activity wasn’t a helpful way of thinking about what I wanted to do. By breaking down the role into its constituent parts I’ve been able to get a balance of variety and control that I’m happy with most of the time.

Put another way, I’ve been functionally decomposing my career and optimising it for years. I guess I really am a developer at heart.

  1. I think it’s fair to say that the responsibilities of a “developer” vary more from job to job than that of, say, “accountant.” []