Why Objective-C is doomed

25/06/2014 § 1 Comment

My recent LinkedIn article ended with the conclusion:

One thing that is clear to observers – Objective-C’s days are numbered. Apple management are not shy about killing off technologies that no longer suit them, and once they feel maintaining Objective-C is preventing further improvement, it will be given an official end of life. This won’t happen overnight, but it will happen, and Objective-C developers should ignore the warning signs at their own peril.

This resulted in an animated comment discussion – many developers who are professionally (and emotionally) tied to Objective-C would be understandably resistant to the concept of its eventual demise. However, I still feel the writing is on the wall for Objective-C. I think this particular aspect deserves a bit more treatment, so I’m presenting the reasoning behind this viewpoint here.

Swift is transitional, not complementary

Apple have done a fantastic job making Swift and Objective-C code interoperate cleanly, and this leads some to believe that the two languages can coexist indefinitely. I get the feeling they regard Swift in the same vein as CoffeeScript – an alternative syntax to exactly the same code, delivering some convenience and terseness to the source without fundamentally changing the underlying programming model.

However, this isn’t an accurate comparison. Evan Swick posted a detailed look at Swift internals – if I can ineptly summarise, Swift, like Objective-C, is implemented on top of the objc runtime, but differs in key areas like method dispatch. It’s more of a peer to Objective-C rather than just a ‘client language’ compiling down to the same executable.

At a higher level, Swift departs from Objective-C in other aspects. Type-safety and the monadic option type will result in much more reliable apps, the various functional programming aspects will enable us to design software in different ways, and the (intentionally) less capable error handling and reflection features will force us to do so.

For application development, Swift will be a better tool for the job by almost any measure. I can’t envision a situation where, on an ongoing basis (and purely on language merit), Objective-C will be used for some parts of a new application, and Swift will be used for others. Swift is interoperable with Objective-C only so that we (and Apple) can leverage our existing code and slowly transition to the new world, not so that we have additional language choices for development.

Swift code will outgrow Objective-C

Swift programs inherit the standard Cocoa design patterns by virtue of using the Cocoa frameworks, but there are places the Swift programming model is likely to go where Objective-C can’t follow. Some of the issues are apparent already:

  • Objective-C APIs return all objects as optionals (and all primitives as non-optional), making optionals much less useful than they are in vanilla Swift code.
  • Objective-C APIs always deal with non-generic collections, resulting in a lot of typecasts and erosion of the benefits of type-safety.

The other areas Swift will diverge is through the new language features. Generics, ADTs, top-level and curried functions will allow new styles of API, but none of these are available from Objective-C. We’ll initially see third party frameworks adopt a ‘Swift-first’ or ‘Swift-only’ API approach, but I expect there’ll be increasing pressure from developers for Apple to follow suit. Note this isn’t necessarily a rational process – see Erica Sudun’s recent anecdote on ‘Cocoaphobia’.

As an aside, I’ve been trying to think of similar scenarios examples where a platform vendor has replaced their core applications language. The plethora of alternative JVM languages are all community-driven. Microsoft successfully replaced VB6 with .NET, although this involved also rewriting the application frameworks, and of course Win32 and MFC refuse to die. F# was born within Microsoft (Research), but they never really pushed this as mainstream C# replacement – instead they’ve rolled F#-inspired enhancements into the C# language, and spun off F# as a community project.

Ultimately, Apple will not be able to continue advancing the platform & the tools while maintaining backward compatibility with Objective-C. We’ll start to see new frameworks released as ‘Swift-only’, and eventually I’d expect to see Foundation and AppKit/UIKit replaced with Swift equivalents.

Objective-C is not indispensable

It’s true that Swift isn’t capable of seamlessly interleaving C & assembly like Objective-C can, but this isn’t a deal-breaker for an application programming language – most other languages in this category (Ruby, C#, Java, Python, etc) can’t do this either.

The argument I’ve seen posed is that because of the C-level compatibility, Apple will always need Objective-C around to perform lower-level tasks (e.g. build the frameworks and tools), therefore they’ll continue making it available for third party devs to use.

There are a few problems with this:

  • Apple are quite okay keeping tools around for internal use only (e.g. YellowBox for Windows, which was used by WebObjects for a while). There’s a lot more involved in fully supporting a technology for third party developers vs using it internally.
  • The bulk of iOS & OS X’s low level code is written in C, C++, and assembly (like every other platform) – e.g. the kernel, the BSD subsystem, clang & LLVM, the objc runtime, CoreFoundation, CoreGraphics, OpenCL, Metal, WebKit, CoreAudio etc. I think most application developers just see the Cocoa layer and tend to overestimate its importance in the scheme of things.
  • The ‘Objective’ part of Objective-C is even less capable than Swift of writing low level ‘unsafe’ code, so if there is a lot of low-level code in the Foundation framework, conceptually you can regard it as being written in C.

The main reason why Objective-C is used to build the application frameworks is because it’s the language used for building applications. Once we transition to using Swift for applications, it will exist there only for legacy reasons.

The end is at handDoomed! Doomed I say!

I’ll finish with a quote from Bill Gates, of all people:

“We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten.”

Anyone today claiming iOS & OS X developers “don’t need to learn Objective-C” is jumping the gun – it’s going to be difficult to be a good developer without knowing the language the bulk of the code is written in. I expect Objective-C will still be around for most, if not all, of that 10 years.

However, anyone assuming that Objective-C will stick around forever is ignoring the warning signs. Swift and the Mac & iOS platforms will outlast Objective-C, hopefully by a significant margin.

 

What Swift means for Mobile Development

08/06/2014 § Leave a comment

To celebrate being granted publishing access on LinkedIn, I’ve put up a post with my thoughts about the new Swift language. I’ve tried my best to make it understandable & accessible for non-developers, but still present useful technical content. Check it out here.

Why Swift was a better option than Xamarin

05/06/2014 § 4 Comments

swift-hero_2xMatt Baxter-Reynolds over at ZDNet claims that Swift is “a total mishit that’s badly judged the state of the software development industry” and that “What Apple should have done, years ago, was bought Xamarin”. I disagree with this on a number of levels.

I think the crux of the argument hinges on the flawed concept that ‘if only’ Apple supported some sort of standard third party language, it would make switching apps & developers between platforms easy, and everybody wins.  This doesn’t make any sense:

  • Learning a new language only takes a few weeks, however learning frameworks, tools, UI idioms, platform processes and cloud service models takes years. I think there’s an implicit and significant overestimation of the actual benefit to developers of using an existing language.
  • Apple could go further and adopt wholesale a full-stack technology like J2ME or Xamarin, but this would eviscerate their ability to innovate & differentiate their platform. I’m struggling with how this could possibly be attractive to them. There’s a definite sense of entitlement in demanding Apple cripple their business to make it slightly easier for third party developers to add value to competitor platforms.

I’d go further and say the industry as a whole would be negatively impacted by ‘language homogenisation’ — having a single language across all platforms would stifle development of new languages and technologies that work to make the industry better. Would we all genuinely be happier and more productive if Java 6 was the only mobile development language?

A couple of other choice quotes:

When I first heard about Swift I was pleased as I assumed that Apple would look to solve the key problem faced by mobile developers — specifically that there is little overlap between developer toolsets making cross-platform mobile development extremely difficult.

I’m one of those developers and that ‘key problem’ is barely even on my list of problems. If it was, I certainly wouldn’t assume it was Apple’s responsibility to solve it.

No, the problems I battle with most are diagnosing obscure app crashes, dealing with header files, dynamic typing issues, forgetting asterisks, counting square brackets and the like (not to mention f*#!ingblocksyntax). Swift goes a long way towards removing this pain.

It’s been a long time since the software development community accepted commercial, “ivory tower” organisations to dictate engineering approaches. The last time this happened was back in the era that brought us Java and .NET itself. Now the community itself decides.

It should make Matt happy to know that the community itself DOES have the ability to decide — there are plenty of cross-platform mobile dev environments available today, including Xamarin. The fact the community hasn’t decided to replace ‘native’ development with these platforms should prompt him to wonder why (and I don’t believe it’s due to them not being first party).

Oh come on — it doesn’t show the best in modern language thinking at all. Modern language thinking comes from the community, building incrementally within that community in a way that’s genuinely helpful to all of us.

I like to think of programming languages as a window into the general attitudes towards language design at the time they were created. Objective-C is clearly a child of the smalltalk era. .NET was influenced by Java which was influenced by C++. The language elements I see in Swift are a reflection of thoroughly modern  thinking from (yes, community driven) languages like Go, Rust, F#Ruby, Python and Haskell.

It sounds like Matt’s arguing only open source languages have the right to be called ‘modern’, which seems a bit narrow-minded to me.

In essence, Apple had one job — create a new baseline tooling for iOS and show a sympatico approach with how the rest of the industry actually operates — and they blew it.

It looks like he’s called out two jobs there. It’s too early to judge whether they’ve blown the first (and most important) job, but at this stage they certainly appear to have delivered the goods. As for the second, maybe I just don’t understand ‘how the rest of the industry actually operates’, but Platform |> Developer Tools |> Software |> Profit! would be my guess. I get the feeling Matt looked at the language, decided he didn’t like it, and took it as a personal affront Apple didn’t just adopt a language he was already comfortable with.

Lastly, I’ll just add that many commentators questioning the need for Swift seem to be assuming the language selection process was a relatively trivial window-shopping exercise — i.e. “Hey, this one looks nice!” However, that’s oversimplifying the number of factors that needed to be considered, and key amongst those was seamless compatibility with existing C & Objective-C code. None of the existing solutions (like Xamarin) come close to doing this as well as Swift.

 

 

YOW! West wrap-up

14/05/2014 § Leave a comment

I had a great time at YOW! West over the last few days – highlights for me were the talks from Jeff Patton, Dave Thomas and the unsung Stew Gleadow.

Slides for my talk are available for download here. I’ve also made the source code for the demo ‘Wishlist’ app available on bitbucket.

During Dave’s talk, I made a list of as many controversial one-liners he dropped as I could. Here they all are, without further comment:
“CPU architects have spent decades trying to make crappy serial code execute in parallel”
“KLOCs kill”
“Dependencies strangle”
“Abstractions bloat”
“A framework is a component on the way to being built that never got finished”
“Refactoring is a joke”
“Computer Science courses teach bad Java and UML diagrams”
“Don’t use text formats like CSV, XML, JSON”
“Batch programming is better”
“Code-Deploy-Monitor (Testing considered harmful)”
“Exception handling should be removed from all programming languages”
“Web services = marketechture”
“Hell of software is dependencies”
“All code will be written in an improved version of SQL by 2020”
“IDEs are needles for addicts”

Replacing the PC

06/05/2014 § Leave a comment

Dustin Curtis came out recently with this piece, subsequently picked up by Marco Arment. The gist of it is that the tablet market will eventually be replaced by smartphones, backed up by demographic figures from Pew Research:

Younger people, on the contrary, simply do their computing entirely on their mobile phones. That’s what they’ve grown up using. Older adults use laptops and tablets to access the internet. Teens and young adults use their phones.

I have to disagree with this statement. It may be true for tweens & teens, but in my experience, primary & early childhood kids pretty much exclusively use iPads (NB: not tablets, iPads specifically). If it’s true that each generation will attach themselves to the specific form factor they first used, the smartphone’s day in the sun is going to be brief.

However, things aren’t so simplistic, and I have some problems with the entire hypothesis. In particular, we need to consider what it is that differentiates a smartphone & a tablet, especially as the hardware is almost identical nowadays. Is it screen size? Not exactly, we already have enough problems drawing an invisible line between the categories that we’ve invented an entirely new one. It can’t be cellular connectivity. Could it be the label applied by the manufacturer? If Apple’s 4.7″ iPhone is branded the ‘iPad Nano’, does that change the category?

No, in my mind, the key defining attribute that makes a smartphone a smartphone, is whether or not it’s capable of traditional (carrier) voice calls*. By that definition, I’m quite confident in predicting that the smartphone market will be completely replaced by ‘tablets’ (of various sizes) within the next 5-10 years.

 

* Thought exercise: if Apple announced a 4G iPod touch (with no Phone app installed), would it be categorised as a smartphone?

 Yes, I’m aware we’re likely to end up calling some of these devices ‘phones’ anyway.

Update – I asked the expert himself on Twitter and got smacked down:

YOW! West 2014

26/04/2014 § Leave a comment

Just an update to let everyone know I’ll be presenting at the YOW! West conference that’s on 13th – 14th of May. I’ve wanted to attend the conference on the east coast for a number of years, but haven’t made it to one yet – hopefully our WA flavoured version will be as good (or better).

My presentation is entitled “Beyond SQLite & Core Data – NoSQL for Mobile” – it will focus on iOS implementations, but the concepts are just as applicable for Android & Windows Phone devs. I’m working on some interesting demos, so I’m hoping people will enjoy it.

Bird Nerd 1.0

05/03/2014 § Leave a comment

So, I built a game.

Bird Nerd IconFollowing the yanking of Flappy Bird from the App Store (and the subsequent proliferation of indie apps), a colleague said: “We should build an app called ‘Flappy Word’, where instead of flying through pipes, you collect letters and make words”. This sounded like an absolute winner of an idea, so I went home and coded up the basic game in SpriteKit that evening. We spent the next week and a bit refining gameplay, designing artwork,  gathering feedback from users, changing the name to something that doesn’t ‘leverage a popular app’, and submitted it to the App Store.

I have to confess to not being much of a gamer (and I haven’t built a game before), so I’m not well equipped to assess whether the game is any good, or predict how many will download it. However, the process of building it was certainly enjoyable, and as I learnt a lot doing it, I’ll go through some of the key design decisions here.

SpriteKit

I haven’t done much work with game engines, but for a game newbie, SpriteKit is a very well-designed framework (if you’re okay with iOS 7+ only). Its allegedly heavily inspired by the popular Cocos2D, but beyond that, it’s a first class Apple framework with expected levels of integration and consistency with the rest of UIKit & CoreFoundation. I’d picked up a copy of Dmitry Volevodz’ ‘iOS 7 Game Development’, which uses an endless runner game as an example, and was able to use this to ramp up on the framework pretty quickly.

SpriteKit has a relatively simple and understandable model, which revolves around SKScenes, SKNodes and SKActions. On an 8-bit style game it required liberal use of node.texture.filteringMode = SKTextureFilteringNearest to prevent antialiasing when scaling up low-res artwork.

Some of the other tips/techniques I discovered were:

  • OpenGL really works the simulator – it always spins up the MacBook fans regardless of whether it’s doing much.
  • Prefer using SKActions for behaviour rather than dumping everything in the -update: method.
  • Subclassing SKSpriteNode for each node type is a good idea, in order to keep the code well separated.
  • Implementing UI elements like buttons in SceneKit is pretty clunky. It would be nice if it was easier to mix UIKit controls into the scene.
  • Texture atlas support is nice, but they aren’t generated during command-line builds – this drove me crazy for a while trying to work out why the TestFlight builds kept crashing.
  • OpenGL really, really does not like running while the app’s in the background. Pause the scene in -applicationWillResignActive: and -applicationDidEnterBackground:

Word lists & game logic

The interesting problems that needed to be solved here were:

  1. spawning new letters in a random, yet playable order
  2. detecting when a valid (or invalid) word is formed

Item 2 requires a word list. As a writer of a non-US flavour of English it was important to me that there be a choice of wordlists (thanks to 12dicts). Despite the Apple documentation and some older references to the contrary, there is definitely a British English language preference in iOS, so it was relatively transparent to load the correct list according the the user’s language settings. The word lists required some pre-processing in a simple ruby script to remove words with punctuation and words shorter than 3 characters. Potentially, I could also strip out words that had a valid word as a prefix (e.g. ‘doggerel’ is unplayable as it’s prefixed with ‘dog’), but I’ve kept them in the list for the moment for potential game enhancements.

The word lists contain up to 75,000 words, which is workable as in-memory data, but should really use an efficient lookup mechanism rather than scanning the entire array each time a letter is hit. Because I know the lists are sorted, I can use a binary search – Cocoa provides one with the -indexOfObject:inSortedRange:options:usingComparator: method of NSArray, which I implemented with a prefix check in the comparator. Each collision, the game can quickly check whether the current letter combination is a valid word, is the start of a valid word, or is invalid.

For item 1, letters are spawned randomly using a very simple frequency weighting (i.e. vowels are more likely). Further localisation of the app would need the frequencies adjusted (and accented letters included, depending on language).  However, during play we noticed it got tedious waiting for a random spawn of the one letter you need, so I included a probabilistic component that includes valid next letters more frequently. This results in the game hinting fairly explicitly in some instances (i.e. if there’s only one valid letter).

Graphic design

It’s probably obvious neither of us are designers! We wanted to go for a retro style, both to make it more Flappy Bird-esque, and because we’re both ancient enough to have played C64/Amiga/classic Mac era games. It has an Australian bush theme, just for something different (see if you can spot the Western Grey Kangaroo).

As an example to try to illustrate the workflow, the bird sprite went through the following evolution:

Bird Nerd Sprite v1 S: “I slightly modified the Flappy Bird sprite to make it look more like a magpie lark”

H: “That’s meant to be a magpie lark?”

Bird Nerd Sprite v2H: “Fek me drawing is hard!”

Bird Nerd Sprite v3S: “I gave him a bigger eye.”

Bird Nerd Sprite v4H: “Larger Bird Nerd sprite. I liked what you did with the glasses thing and have tried to enhance that further.”

Bird Nerd Sprite v5S: “I think his eye still needs to be bigger. Should he have more white on his belly?

Bird Nerd Sprite v6H: “I think a coloured beak and legs looks pretty good?”

Bird Nerd Sprite v7S: “Couldn’t help myself – I had to make his glasses bigger”

The coins were added late in development, after the sound effects were added, as they were quite reminiscent of the Mario-style coin collection and solved an issue with legibility and contrast in drawing the letters directly onto the background.

Game Physics

Bird Nerd Screenshot

The basic mechanics are close to that of Flappy Bird – tap to fly up. Flappy Bird appears to instantaneously set the upward velocity to a constant value rather than apply a set amount of force, i.e. it’s irrelevant how fast you were falling before the tap. I did wind back the gravity and upward velocity to make the game a bit more controllable – the early versions were incredibly difficult, and given the spelling component of the game is quite hard, it was a reasonable trade-off to make flying a little easier.

Initially we noticed players lurked at the top or bottom of the screen to wait for letters – we solved this by ‘landing’ and pausing the game if the bird got too low, and spawning letters all the way up to the top of screen (behind the score) to prevent staying high. Initially the letters were completely random with some hit-testing to prevent overlap, but once we went to letter coins it made more visual sense to lay them out on a grid.

The actual physics and collision code was remarkably simple thanks to SpriteKit; the only real issue I came across was a little bit of ‘drift’ in the player’s x position, presumably due to collisions (easily rectified by resetting in the SKScene -update). I shudder to think how much effort it would have been writing something like this in 6502 assembler on a C64.

Revenue Model

I went for iAd in-app advertising as a revenue model – even if I felt it was worth it, charging upfront for a game in such a crowded market is a really hard sell. In-App Purchase is where nearly all of the game revenue is, but it’s a fair bit of additional development work, and is generating wariness in some consumers thanks to an increasing number of slimy implementations. iAd isn’t regarded as a high earner, but I wanted to experiment with it (partly so I could have some stats for the next Perth iOS Meetup). Plus, I just can’t stand non-retina ads. And yes, I’m aware of the irony of complaining about pixelated ads in an intentionally pixelated game!

iAd implementation is quick & easy – the contract can be configured in about 10 minutes online, and integrating a banner view is only a couple of lines of code. There are a few gotchas – most of the Apple iAd documentation still refers to deprecated methods, and there are a handful of rejection-tempting faux pas you need to be aware of, such as displaying a blank banner view, or submitting screenshots showing test ads.

Final Thoughts

Working with someone else on an app was quite valuable, both in the sense of ‘two heads are better than one’, and to keep the motivation and development pace up. At this stage I have no idea how the app will be received, or how to go about marketing it, but I’ll add another post once the dust has settled and I’ve got some download and iAd stats. In the meantime, get your Bird Nerd on and post your score on Twitter!

Download Bird Nerd from the App Store

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.