Tuesday, December 02, 2008

G1 Camera Tricks

The G1's camera seems to be slow. Really slow. As in several-seconds slow. I always wondered why; then I started to look at my pictures from the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

Ah. I see. I don't think that's because of the curvature of the lens (it's not curved THAT much) I was apparently panning the camera when I took this picture (to keep up with the float, though I didn't correctly account for the very long shutter delay, and the float ended up behind the pole). You are seeing the effect of the CCD "scanning". This reminds me of this project, in which a dude builds a digital camera from a flatbed scanner. This is a picture of his garage door opening and closing while he takes a single exposure.

I hope this isn't an actual limitation of the G1's hardware. My cheap Nokia 6267, a feature phone, had an excellent 2MP camera that took pictures nearly instantaneously. So far, the G1's camera reminds me of my short experience with Windows Mobile 5's camera app - slow and clunky.

Using a Horizontal Progress Bar in Android

I was working on my Android downloader application yesterday, when I ran into a bit of a snag. I wanted to display a list of downloads (similar to the Firefox downloads window). Each item in the list should show the file name and a horizontal progress bar. I started to implement this, and several hours later stumbled upon the arcane solution. I wanted to share this, both to help anybody who may be trying to do something similar, and also to illustrate how the lack of good documentation is hurting aspiring Android developers.

I thought that I could put a ProgressBar instance in my xml, set it to be indeterminate, give it a max and a value, and be done. However, it wasn't nearly that easy. After a few hours of hunting on Google and the Android Groups, I stumbled upon the solution in an online preview of The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development. In short, I had to set the following on my ProgressBar's XML:


Let's try to break this down. The ? on the front indicates that this is a reference to something in the current theme. What is a theme? Well, Android's UI infrastructure is similar to Swing or HTML in that it tries to accommodate components whose size is not known until runtime. Android's components are also themeable (similar to the Swing Synth LAF). A theme is a collection of related component styles. You can control the theme used by your application in the AndroidManifest.xml file. So, I think we can safely conclude that attr/progressBarStyleHorizontal is something whose actual value is defined in a particular theme.

If you take a peek in the android source code, inside frameworks/base/core/res/res/values/attrs.xml, you will find the following definition:

<declare-styleable name="Theme">
<!-- snip -->
<attr name="progressBarStyleHorizontal" format="reference" />
OK, not very useful. However, in frameworks/base/core/res/res/values/themes.xml, we find:
<style name="Theme">
<item name="progressBarStyleHorizontal">@android:style/Widget.ProgressBar.Horizontal</item>
Nowe we're getting somewhere. Finally, inside frameworks/base/core/res/res/values/styles.xml, we see:
<style name="Widget.ProgressBar.Horizontal">
<item name="android:indeterminateOnly">false</item>
<item name="android:progressDrawable">@android:drawable/progress_horizontal</item>
<item name="android:indeterminateDrawable">@android:drawable/progress_indeterminate_horizontal</item>
<item name="android:minHeight">20dip</item>
<item name="android:maxHeight">20dip</item>

What's going on here? Well, it looks like themes.xml defines a theme as a collection of styles. Along with that, styles.xml specifies a set of attributes that should be applied to a particular XML element. By saying

<ProgressBar style="?android:attr/progressBarStyleHorizontal">
we are really saying
<ProgressBar style="@android:style/Widget.ProgressBar.Horizontal">
which is like saying

For bonus points, we can look in frameworks/base/core/res/res/drawable/progress_horizontal.xml. This file apparently contains the declarative expression of the horizontal scrollbar graphic. I don't know how extensive this syntax is, but a quick peek at progress_indeterminate_horizontal.xml indicates that it is possible to specify animations in this XML file format.

All this seems really powerful, only somewhat useful, and totally confusing. All I wanted was to create a horizontal progress bar. I can't tell why the Android widget collection includes only one ProgressBar class that is meant to be used for horizontal, indeterminate horizontal, indeterminate circular, and every other kind of possible progress indicator. Perhaps there would be duplication of code if those were separated into different classes. Whatever. I actually don't mind that they stuffed all those progress indicators into a single class. There are some questionable decisions (like having both indeterminate and indeterminateOnly), but I can deal with it. On the other hand, the incantations that you have to use to get the Progress Bar to behave are truly arcane. I think I have proven in this blog post that there is some method to the madness and, as is often the case, easy access to the source code is a must. What bothers me most is that there was absolutely no documentation on the subject. Google seems silent on this topic, and even The Busy Coder's Guide mentions that the style attribute won't be covered until a later edition of the book (though it is possible that the Google Books sample chapter is out of date at this point).

I still maintain that Android is one of the most unique application systems that I've seen. However, as I've tried to develop for it, I have encountered a general lack of polish. Many things that you want to do as a developer are confusing and poorly documented. Familiarity with existing technologies (such as Swing or Applet programming) is pretty much useless here. On the other hand, the core concepts (such as the use of Intents to start applications and communicate between processes, the HEAVY use of message passing, and the declarative nature of the AndroidManifest.xml file) seem to be an excellent base upon which to build not just an open operating system, but a truly open user experience. A power user can really replace virtually any aspect of the system. Perhaps developers will create third party libraries that make Android a little easier within which to develop, or maybe Google itself will provide simpler interfaces for developers. Or perhaps Android will die out because developers had a difficult time building anything particularly complex. Whatever the outcome, I'm excited for the ride.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Grep is fun

I'm not what you would call a UNIX power user. I'm more of a UNIX casual user. I don't agree with the zealots who claim that the command line is king, and shell scripts keep the world spinning. It's a pain to remember the myriad of switches, and to remember the differences in those switches between platforms (BSD find requires a pathname, GNU find does not), etc. Maybe my distaste of the command line is why my primary computer is a Mac.

In any case, I was rooting around in the Android source code today, looking for examples involving the NotificationManager. I managed to whip up the following pipeline, of which I am proud.

grep -rl --include=*.java NotificationManager . | xargs grep -l "\.clear" | xargs mate

To break that down,

grep -rl --include=*.java NotificationManager . This will recurse in the current directory, finding all .java files which contain the word NotificationManager. The resulting list of files will be passed to the next step.
xargs grep -l "\.clear" This looks for the string ".clear" in any of the files that came from the first command. It outputs the list of matching files to the next command.
xargs mate This launches TextMate, my editor of choice, with all of the files found in the previous step.

To summarize, this pipeline opens a text editor with every .java file in the android source code that contains both of the strings "NotificationManager" and ".clear". In my case, I was looking for all invocations of NotificationManager.clear(). Since the Android source code seems to be pretty consistent about explicitly importing all classes used, this scheme works pretty well.

If anybody knows of any command-line tools for searching a code base for Java-aware constructs (such as method definition, method invocation, etc.), please let me know! Something like that would be really, really handy. Eclipse provides all that, but it doesn't look trivial to get all of the Android source code into Eclipse projects.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

AnyCut's "Make Your Own" Demystified

I installed AnyCut on my G1 a little while ago. AnyCut is a small app that allows you to create shortcuts to, well, almost anything. It has a mysterious "Make Your Own" option that isn't really documented at all. I started to play with it a bit, and it's not as bad as you would think.

The Make Your Own screen has three fields: Action, Data, and Type. I believe that these line up with the constructor parameters of public Intent(String action, Uri uri, Context packageContext, Class<?> cls). The Action parameter is one of the string consts in the Intent class (such as android.intent.action.VIEW, not Intent.ACTION_VIEW), and the Data parameter should really be called Uri, because it includes the Uri of the item upon which you want to act. See also the list of common intents. I imagine that the Type parameter is a fully-qualified class name, but it can be left blank for most uses. Finally, I suspect that the packageContext parameter is supplied by AnyCut itself.

I haven't yet had a chance to verify any of this against the source code (which I came across while writing this post), but it might be worth a look.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

2 Days with Google Gears

I had a chance to play with Google Gears on a mockup project recently. I was surprised to learn that my understanding of Gears was not the same as the reality of Gears. I had expected it to be a JS library to facilitate rich HTML applications to handle spotty network connections. It turned out that Gears is a browser plugin that adds useful tools that any rich web app developer would find useful, though they are all aligned to handle an app losing its network connection. In the two days that I spent playing with Gears, I was pretty much blown away by the power and simplicity of it.

Besides understanding what Gears is, it's important to also understand what Gears is not. Gears doesn't try to be a UI library, or a general "glue" library (see JQuery, Prototype, MochiKit, MooTools, or any other Javascript framework). It doesn't really force you to code in any particular way (this is a bit of a lie, but more on that later). Just as a sampling, Gears includes:

  • A cross-browser compatible XMLHttpRequest
  • Local database storage
  • A web resource cache, so that items can still be fetched even if the network connection goes down. This is nearly completely transparent to the developer, and works for resources loaded by Gears or by the browser itself.
  • A mechanism to run scripts in the background (for real).

In our little demo, we have a set of checkboxes that can be checked. Initially, these would perform an asynchronous post to the server, where they would update some server-side state. However, if the app goes offline, nothing will ever reach the server. We modified this to enqueue changes into a local database, with a background script pulling items out of the database and sending them to the server. If the server ever goes down, that thread simply stops pulling items out of the database. In addition, we set our app up so that its resources (HTML, Javascript, CSS, and images) were initially cached when the app is first loaded. A neat feature of Gears seems to be that it will monitor the apps that it knows about and will automatically update its cache if the cache ever gets stale. Unfortunately, it's not perfect. It depends on the developer updating a version string, which causes Gears to update its cache from the source.

One problem that we had is that the HTML that we served up would include information about what items were checked. That is to say, when you would load the page, we would serve up some <input type="checkbox" /> and <input type="checkbox" checked="checked" /> elements. This makes total sense in a traditional web app. The client requests the page, and you serve it, and everybody is happy. Every time the page is served, it is reconstructed with the current state of the data. As you might imagine, this caused all kinds of problems for us. Concretely, we noticed that every time the page was reloaded (whether the network connection is up or down), the browser would display the state of the page as it was when the cache first acquired it. In a real application, that could mean that you are seeing data that is several months out of date. Now you see how I lied earlier. Gears does influence the way you code your application, but its requirements are about the same as those of any Javascript-heavy web app. As long as you separate your application presentation from your data, you should be fine.

Another thing that surprised and greatly pleased me was Gears' WorkerPool implementation. As everybody knows, it is impossible to run Javascript in the background in a normal web browser. I think that's because multi-threaded programming is hard, and Javascript can be pretty hairy as it is. I think that the browser designers have held off on implementing a threading solution out of fear that multithreaded Javascript would cause the apocalypse. As it turns out, though, Gears' implementation is both simple and powerful. Gears uses a message-passing mechanism for communication, with absolutely no shared state. This is great news. As far as I can tell, just as your main JS code has an event loop, each worker also has an event loop. Whenever a message is sent from the main JS code to a worker, that message is copied and onMessage is invoked on by that worker's event loop. Likewise, when a worker sends a message back to the main JS, the message is copied and onMessage is invoked on the main event loop. This has some interesting implications. For one, none of the workers have access to the DOM, or to global variables defined on the page, and cannot participate in closures with mainline Javascript code. By placing a concrete wall between your page and your workers, Gears forces you to think about the interactions that the page and the worker will have, and that's a Good Thing. I'm sure that it's still possible for threading to ruin you, it's just a lot harder with a scheme like this.

And that's it. There's more to Gears that what I described (though not much more). It also includes some geolocation bits (presumably for Android, and maybe Safari Mobile, integration), desktop integration stuff, a standards-compliant timer, a file multi-chooser (yay!), and a binary data type (as opposed to String, which is for textual content). It's a shame that Gears is still in beta. I would really like to see some sites that use it. Of course, since I just recently installed Gears, there might be some sites that do and I never realized it.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

User-Visible Permissions in Android

I picked up a T-Mobile G1 (danger: Flash-heavy site) at the local T-Mobile store. For those that don't know, the G1 is the first device to run Google's Android platform. So far I like it a lot, and I'll probably post a lot more about it in the near future.

Like the iPhone, Android has its own app store. Unlike the iPhone, nobody moderates apps submitted to the Android app store. If an app tries to do anything of consequence (i.e. anything that a user might want to know about), it must explicitly request that permission. When you start to download an app from the marketplace, it tells you what permissions that app will require. Most apps are well behaved, but some ask for way too much.

For example, I wanted a weather app. I saw that there is a Weather Channel app. When I went to download it, however, I was very surprised. Here is a list of the permissions that it requested.

Network communicationfull Internet access
Your locationcoarse (network-based) location, fine (GPS) location
System toolschange network communication, change your UI settings, modify global system settings
Your messagesedit SMS or MMS
Services that cost you moneysend SMS messages
Your personal informationread contact data

What? Why does this app need access to my contacts, or to send text messages? I hope that this was just a lazy developer who requested more permissions that he actually needed, but I'm suspicious. It's entirely possible that The Weather Channel intends to compile a list of all my contacts. Not cool. Especially since it makes no mention of that.

I think it's great that Android provides some ability for the end user to judge the software that they might install on their phone. I'll wait until The Weather Channel updates their app.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Scala's Model of Functions

I was a little dismayed to learn that Scala models functions with different numbers of parameters as instances of distinct function trait definitions. A practical upshot of this is that you can't really work with functions that take more than 22 parameters.

def crazy(a:Int, b:Int, c:Int, d:Int, e:Int, f:Int, g:Int, h:Int, i:Int, j:Int, 
k:Int, l:Int, m:Int, n:Int, o:Int, p:Int, q:Int, r:Int, s:Int, t:Int,
u:Int, v:Int) = 0
(crazy _).curry : (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) =>
(Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) => (Int) =>
(Int) => (Int) => Int = <function>

def crazier(a:Int, b:Int, c:Int, d:Int, e:Int, f:Int, g:Int, h:Int, i:Int, j:Int,
k:Int, l:Int, m:Int, n:Int, o:Int, p:Int, q:Int, r:Int, s:Int, t:Int,
u:Int, v:Int, w:Int) = 0
(crazier _).curry : <error>

The scala runtime apparently has traits Function0 through Function22 defined. I guess this is so that they can have call methods that take a statically known list of parameters (rather than, say, an array). That's all well and good, and probably necesary for proper Java interop, but it's still a little sad. Still, I don't expect to run into that limit any time soon. Oh wait, I have already worked on projects with functions that take more than 20 parameters. Maybe this was added just for me. Now I'm sad.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Partial Application in Haskell and Scala

This is an attempt to squeeze out a blog post while I wait for my laundry to finish.

Functional languages are fun. Fun in ways that Java (and, for that matter, Ruby) are not. Take Haskell. In that language, we can take any operator and turn it into a function. Normally, we use the symbol + to represent addition. If we enclose it in parentheses, we instead have a function.

(+) :: (Num a) => a -> a -> a

In this case, (+) is a function of 2 number parameters, which returns a number. Now that we have a function, we can apply all of the standard Haskell magic to it. Since Haskell is automatically curried (no function really ever takes more than one parameter), we chain calls to fully evaluate our (+) function.

(+) 2 3 => 5

We can also partially apply this operator.

add5 :: Integer -> Integer
add5 = (+) 5
add5 3 => 8

In this case, we have created an alias for the partially bound + operator. Rather than jump through so many hoops, we could specify add5 more directly.

add5 = (5+)

Finally, a slightly more complicated example.

simple :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> Integer
simple x y z = x * (y + z)

simpler :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer
simpler = simple 2

simplest :: Integer
simplest = simpler 3 4 => 14

All functions are also values in Haskell.

easy = simple
easy 2 3 4 => 14

As you can see, in Haskell, we can turn any operator into a function. Functions are curried, and can be partially evaluated from the left. Functions are also values that can be assigned and passed around as needed.

Scala takes a different approach. In Scala, operators are actually methods on values. There is no global + operator. Instead, you invoke the + method on the left hand parameter.

5 + 3 //is the same as...

If you want to refer to a function as a value in Scala, you must "partially apply" it to zero parameters.

val output = println //will result in a compilation error
val output = println _
output "Oh Hai, World!"

The underscore is the Scala placeholder operator. If used as we did with println, it stands in for the whole argument list, effectively turning the function into a function value. It is also the mechanism by which we can partially apply a function.

def simple(x:Int, y:Int, z:Int) = x * (y + z)
val simpler = simple(2, _:Int, _:Int)
simpler(3, 4) => 14

The underscores, when used this way, compel the result of the expression to itself be a function that takes n parameters, where n is the number of placeholders. Sometimes, it is possible to infer the type of the missing parameters; other times, it isn't. It depends on how the parameters are used.

It is very important to notice that, unlike Haskell, it is very easy to bind only the parameter in the middle of this expression.

val sample = simple(_:Int, 3, _:Int)
sample(2, 4) => 14

By combining placeholder syntax with operators, it is possible to turn an operator into a function, even a function that takes its left operand as a parameter.

List(1, 2, 3).map(_ + 2) => List(3, 4, 5)
List(1, 2, 3).reduceLeft(_ + _) => 6

As you can see, Haskell and Scala have a lot in common. Haskell's syntax is a bit more concise (and its inference rules much better), but Scala's ability to bind any parameter is pretty handy, too. There's something both cluttered and clean about Haskell's use of underscores, especially when types aren't required. Of course, I'm not an expert (or, in fact, experienced at all) with either language, so please correct me if I got any of my facts wrong.

Looks like I failed. My laundry was done 30 minutes ago.

Saturday, October 04, 2008

The Machine

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to see The Machine with my family. The Machine is a Pink Floyd tribute band. That is to say, at their shows, they play nothing but Pink Floyd music. All of the musicians are clearly extreme Floyd fans. I mean, why else would you spend 20 years of your life playing somebody else's music? Now, some people don't like tribute bands. I had a hard time getting people to see The Australian Pink Floyd Show when they came to New York (playing literally a few blocks from where we were staying). Who cares that these aren't the original musicians? Would you also refuse to go to a performance of Beethoven's 5th because it wasn't being conducted by the man himself? Of course not! The music is just as good, and the musicians are going to make it special and awesome anyway. But I digress...

It was interesting to see the variety in people in the theater. Obviously, many of the patrons were my parents' age, but there were also some college kids and folks whose heads were completely gray. What was perhaps more interesting to me is that the 50 year olds were more animated and crazy than the college kids. They had some smoke machines up on stage, but I don't think that was the source of all the smoke in the hall. It's fun to watch adults relive their youth.

The set was Dark Side of the Moon (with the Wizard of Oz projected onto their own version of Mr. Screen), followed by an intermission, followed by The Wall. Not a bad setlist at all. As they launched into the beginning songs from Dark Side, I was carefully listening for any variation from the album tracks that I know so well. I couldn't help it. These guys were playing well-known and well-loved music, so it's only natural to compare their performance to the original. By The Great Gig in the Sky, though, I was totally sold. The woman that belted out those notes was simply amazing. She absolutely hit every note. It was surreal. The keyboardist was younger than the rest and totally crazy, with a maniacal grin that was somehow larger than his actual face. The drummer hid behind the drums for most of the show, but did a very good job. The bassist seemed detached, standing apart from the others. I suspect that was completely intentional. The saxophone player was decent, but wasn't very memorable (after all, he only played on a few songs). Rounding out the group is the lead guitarist / lead singer. His ability to mimic both David Gilmour and Roger Waters was spooky. The man knew his guitar well, and made it sound just like the original.

By the time they were playing The Wall, people in the crowd were singing along. Performing Dark Side first was a good idea. People were more mellow when the entered the theater than when they left, and Dark Side is best appreciated without whoops and cheers. The Wall, on the other hand, is great with audience participation. In the end, they ended up getting 4 standing ovations (after Dark Side, after (I think) Comfortably Numb, after The Wall, and after their encore of Run Like Hell). They deserved each and every one of them. They probably played for 2.5 hours all told.

I never got a chance to see Pink Floyd live. As one of the people sitting next to us pointed it, this is the closest you can get at this point. While I agree with him, it is wrong to think of these guys as a facsimile of that famous band. These are all very talented musicians who love this music so much that they have dedicated a big chunk of their lives to it. As a fan, I'm grateful to them for doing that.

Saturday, September 06, 2008

No More Statics! Part 2

In a previous post, I explained how Scala's use of singleton objects is better than Java's use of static members. I was asked for some sample code after that post, so I thought I would throw some together. Let's look at a simple Java class.

class Foo {
private static int number = 1;

public static Foo create(String a) {
return new Foo("Some " + a);

private String a;
private int id = number++;

public Foo(String a) {
this.a = a;

public String toString() {
return "Foo #" + id + " is " + a;

This class keeps track of how many instances have ever been created. You construct a Foo with a name, and the Foo's name and id are part of its string representation. In addition, there is a create method that has been defined on the Foo class itself.

Scala doesn't have a "static" keyword. Instead, members that would otherwise be static are placed onto the so-called companion object.

object Foo {
var number:Int = 1;

def create(a:String) = new Foo("Some " + a)

class Foo(a:String) {
private val id:Int = Foo.number
Foo.number = Foo.number + 1

override def toString() = {
"Foo #" + id + " is " + a

Because Foo is the name of both an object and a class in the same package, they are allowed to access each other's private members. Basically, this makes the instance members of a singleton object equivalent to static members of an ordinary Java class. However, since the singleton object is a fully fledged object, it can be passed around in a way that Java classes normally can't be.

def createList(f : Foo.type) = {
List(f.create("One"), f.create("Two"))

Have you ever wanted a Java class' static members to obey an interface? Well, the singleton object can mix in Scala traits (Scala traits seem to take the place of both interfaces and mixins from other languages).

trait Creatable[A] {
def create(a:String) : A

def createDefault() : A = {
return create("Default")

object Foo extends Creatable[Foo] {
var number:Int = 1;

override def create(a:String) = new Foo(a)

And here's a whole sample program:

trait Creatable[A] {
def create(a:String) : A

def createDefault() : A = {
return create("Default")

object Foo extends Creatable[Foo] {
var number:Int = 1;

override def create(a:String) = new Foo(a)

class Foo(a:String) {
private val id:Int = Foo.number
Foo.number = Foo.number + 1

override def toString() = {
"Foo #" + id + " is " + a

def createList(f : Creatable[Foo]) = {
List(f.create("Three"), f.create("Four"))



Foo #1 is One
Foo #2 is Two
List(Foo #3 is Three, Foo #4 is Four)
Foo #5 is Default

Why are singleton objects better than static members? To begin with, Scala's singleton objects are at least as expressive as static class members, so you're not losing anything from Java. You define a singleton object differently that you define static members in Java, but you access them using notation identical to Java (i.e. Foo.bar(5) in both languages). In addition, you get some other nice features - first class object status and the ability to participate in the normal class hierarchy. As an added bonus, Scala's simpler syntax actually made the class/singleton-object pair shorter than the equivalent Java solution. Not bad!

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

On Architecture

The other day, a coworker told me that they want to improve their architectural skills. That brought up a number of questions for me. What is architecture and how does it differ from programming? What are traits of a good architecture? What about a good architect? Am I a good architect?

"Traits of a good architecture" is something that gets covered in a lot of CS textbooks: extensibility, security, resilience, and so on. However, concentrating on those traits won't make you a better architect.

I don't know what will improve your architectural skills, but I do know what I think about when I'm working on architecture. I don't necessarily architect by reason. I have "good code" values, and I evaluate all the code that I write or encounter against them. For example, I think that exceptions (if available) should be used to signal the presence of and to recover from erroneous conditions. Status codes are straight out, and "fixups"[1] are a bad idea, too. Only in rare performance-critical areas are other mechanisms appropriate.

Where did I get my "good code" values? I've built them up from my personal and professional experience. I've been writing toy programs for 18 years. A lot of that is useless today, but some of those experiences have taught me valuable lessons. Just like a master carpenter didn't acquire his skills overnight, a software architect needs to develop his skills over a period of time. Trying, failing, reading, watching, discussing, and reflecting are all useful for developing this sense.

Just like other developers, I like to program. In fact, for an architect, it's essential to get one's hands dirty. However, it's also important to know when to step back and look at the big picture. For me, it's all about relying on that design "sense". When people talk about code smells, it's because something smells rank to their design sense. On the other hand, it's important not to get paralyzed by that sense. If you're unsure what direction you should be heading, it might be time to try something. Commit your current work (or, if using Git or Mercurial, create a new branch) and try going down a path. Keep your eyes open along the way, and learn what works and what does not. If you have time, try the other path. It might also make sense to start a new "toy" project to try some ideas without being burdened by the current code base. Also, be ready to revert all of your changes. Most of the work in programming is wrapped up in the thinking. Once you know how to do something, it should be reasonably simple to reproduce your work[2].

Finally, I'm a big fan of deciding on a direction and pursuing it. Sometimes, you don't know what to do, and it's too much work to mock up or try out even one approach. In this case, I ask myself how I would want it to work, and I try to do that. I ignore technical constraints unless they are insurmountable. Blindly following a path because it is "right" can get you into a lot of trouble, but so can meandering about without any goal in sight.

What do other people think? What is architecture to you, and how do you improve those skills?

[1] In this case, I'm talking about code which detects invalid input or state (which is a good thing), but then changes the input or state to be valid. An example would be a function with a parameter whose value needs to be in the range [1, 1000], but which will assume 0 for any invalid value. This makes the function always terminate normally (after all, there are no longer any invalid inputs), but it doesn't necessarily ensure correctness of the program. Who's to say that 24124142 and 0 are equivalent, anyway? Exceptions are better because they allow the caller, not the callee, to determine the result in the case of an invalid condition.

[2] If, on the other hand, most of your programming effort is spent on pushing keys on a keyboard, you're in a difficult position. Programming is primarily a thinking man's game, not a typing man's game. Your goal should not be to generate the most code in a day, but rather to generate the most value per line of code. Partially, then, your goal should be to keep the number of lines of code to a minimum. Removing code while retaining functionality, flexibility, and performance is always a good thing.

No More Statics!

As I read more about Scala, I'm running across a lot of things that I like. In Scala, there are no static members: no static methods; no static fields. Instead, Scala has so-called "singleton" objects. These singleton objects are globally accessible, though their instance methods and fields are still subject to access restriction. This is great because it exposes what we all knew all along: that static fields and methods in Java are really just global variables and functions. Granted, they are access-controlled, namespaced globals, but they're still globals.

Since each class' singleton object is in fact an object, it can subclass another object or mix in traits, just like objects that are spawned by a class. The singleton object has the same rights as any other object in the system.

In addition, a singleton object can share a name with a class; if it does so, they can access each other's private data. I'm not sure yet, but I assume that this is how Scala accesses static members of Java classes - it creates a singleton object that doesn't derive or mix in anything, but turns all the static methods and fields of the Java class into instance members of the singleton object.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Terseness for Terseness' Sake

I've been reading up on Scala, since it seems like it may be a better Java than Java itself. As I was reading through the pre-release PDF of Programming in Scala, I came across something goofy.

Scala, like (as I understand it) F#, tries to nestle itself comfortably between the functional and imperative camps. It has a syntax that supports both schools of though. So, as you might expect, some functions in Scala will behave nicely and will return a value without any side effects. Other functions will be executed solely for the side effects, and will return nothing (the Unit type in Scala). To further the Functional mindset, Scala does not require an explicit return statement at the end of a function. Instead, the last value in the function is used as the value of the function. Programming in Scala is quick to point out that, if you want, you can just as easily use explicit return statements (if that floats your boat).

The functional and imperative worlds collide in a shower of fireworks. From Programming in Scala:

One puzzler to watch out for is that whenever you leave off the equals sign before the body of a function, its result type will definitely be Unit. This is true no matter what the body contains, because the Scala compiler can convert any type to Unit. For example, if the last result of a method is a String, but the method’s result type is declared to be Unit, the String will be converted to Unit and its value lost.
The book then goes on to provide an example where a function's value is accidentally lost.

Now, I'm all for shortening my programs. The less I have to type, the better. This is, in fact, one of the big advantages Scala has over Java. But wait just a minute! I thought that our compilers were supposed to help us, not trip us up! Here's a situation where 2 different things (a function's return value and the function's return statement) are optional. If they are not specified, they are inferred. In that case, the only difference between retaining and losing your return value is a single character - a '='.

To get all concrete, here are a pair of Scala programs that do different things.

package org.balefrost.demo

object Sample {
def foo {

def main(args : Array[String]) : Unit = {
val baz = foo

=> ()

package org.balefrost.demo

object Sample {
def foo = {

def main(args : Array[String]) : Unit = {
val baz = foo

=> "bar"

I don't know. To me, that's goofy. Other people might find it completely reasonable. Of course, you can protect yourself with explicit types.

package org.balefrost.demo

object Sample {
def foo {

def main(args : Array[String]) : Unit = {
val baz:String = foo //compiler error: can't assign Unit to String

Anyway, kudos to Programming in Scala for pointing out the potential cause of a hair-yankingly-frustrating bug. Now that I understand what's going on, I will probably be better able to handle it when it comes up in a real program.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Should I Squash Underhanded Corporate Comments or Let Them Live?

At this point, my Memeo Autosync post has gotten a few comments that clearly originate from somebody who works for(or otherwise has a stake in) Memeo. On one hand, I really dislike this corporate intrusion in an otherwise pristine blog. They have masqueraded as a genuine user, which is misleading and underhanded. On the other hand, it appears that they have offered a discount on Memeo software.

What do other bloggers do with these situations? Do they squash comments that are subversive like this? Do they just allow them, realizing that blog readers are intelligent individuals and will notice the obvious deception? What do you think?

Why You Can Throw Away "If", and Why You Shouldn't


Most reasonably experienced object-oriented programmers have probably stumbled upon the same realization; namely, that it's possible to replace if statements with polymorphism. Polymorphism is simply a way to delay a decision until runtime. The if statement does the same thing. In fact, procedural programmers need to resort to things like if and switch statements because they have no other tool. Functional programmers, on the other hand, simply toss functions around willy nilly.

This realization can be powerful. It can also really hurt a code base (I know - I've smashed my share of algorithmic china with this hammer). I recently ran into a place on a project where it was a great idea, and I thought I would share why I thought it worked so well.

Current Implementation

Suppose you have 2 methods:

public void storeNewItem() {
Item item = new Item();
item.name = request["name"];
item.description = request["description"];
item.quantity = request["quantity"];
item.value = someComplexCalculation();
item.totalValue = item.quantity * item.value;
// calculate and store some more fields here

public void storeExistingItem() {
Item item = items.get(request["itemId"]);
item.name = request["name"];
item.description = request["description"];
item.quantity = request["quantity"];
item.value = someComplexCalculation();
item.totalValue = item.quantity * item.value;
// calculate and store some more fields here

These two functions should look pretty similar. In fact, they are nearly identical. Both acquire an item, populate it with data, and then store it. The only difference is the way that the item is acquired and the way that the item is stored.

First Attempt

I wanted to merge these methods, and this was my first attempt.

public void storeItem() {
Item item;
if (request["itemId"] == null) {
item = new Item();
} else {
item = items.get(request["itemId"]);

item.name = request["name"];
item.description = request["description"];
item.quantity = request["quantity"];
item.value = someComplexCalculation();
item.totalValue = item.quantity * item.value;
// calculate and store some more fields here

if (request["itemId"] == null) {
} else {

This works, but is obvious crap. I found myself saying "I wish Item were able to handle those details by itself".

Second Attempt

Well, I wasn't brave enough to change Item, so I instead wrapped it.

public void storeItem() {
Persister persister;
if (request["itemId"] == null) {
persister = new NewItemPersister();
} else {
persister = new ExistingItemPersister(request["itemId"]);

Item item = persister.getItem();
item.name = request["name"];
item.description = request["description"];
item.quantity = request["quantity"];
item.value = someComplexCalculation();
item.totalValue = item.quantity * item.value;
// calculate and store some more fields here

interface Persister {
Item getItem();
void persist();

class NewItemPersister implements Persister {
private Item item = new Item();

public Item getItem() { return item; }

public void persist() { items.addNewItem(item); }

class ExistingItemPersister implements Persister {
private Item item;

public ExistingItemPersister(String itemId) {
item = items.get(request["itemId"]);

public Item getItem() { return item; }

public void persist() { item.update(); }

We still have an ugly if at the top of the function, and we have certainly ballooned the code. I still think that this is better than what we started with.

  • There is less duplication, which will make maintenance here much easier.
  • The Persister interface could be made into a generic class, and the implementations could be re-used all over the system. Some reflection here could really simplify your life.
  • A good web framework would allow you to remove that pesky initial if statement. In a less good framework, you could hide this behind some sort of object that knows how to generate a persister from an itemId (or null).
The practical upshot is that these changes should make it easier to apply metaprogramming techniques to this chunk of code. The only code that can't really be made declarative is some of the code which assigns values to fields.

There is one thing that bothers me, though. We have made the Persister implementors responsible for the lifetime of the Item. That's not at all clear from the interface, but it is obvious from the use. The tell-tale sign is that we have a getItem() method. Getters that expose their class' internals like this are evil, and if you don't believe me, you're just plain wrong. I won't try to justify that statement in this post, but trust me.

Third Attempt

To solve this, we could change the interface yet again (and I will switch to Javascript, because Java doesn't have any convenient lambda syntax).

function storeItem() {
if (request["itemId"] == null) {
var persister = newItemPersister;
} else {
var persister = new ExistingItemPersister(request["itemId"]);

persister.update(function(item) {
item.name = request["name"];
item.description = request["description"];
item.quantity = request["quantity"];
item.value = someComplexCalculation();
item.totalValue = item.quantity * item.value;
// calculate and store some more fields here

var newItemPersister {
update:function(f) {
var item = new Item();

function ExistingItemPersister(itemId) {
this.itemId = itemId;

ExistingItemPersister.prototype.update = function(f) {
var item = items.get(request["itemId"]);

Now, the item's lifetime is only as long as a call to update() is on the stack. This is a common idiom in Ruby, as well.


In the end, I wasn't completely happy with any of these solutions. I think that things are better than they were before. There are also a number of other permutations that will get it marginally closer to ideal. I think that the real solution is to update Item so that you can create a new item and save an existing item with a single method. After that, the code to choose whether to create a new object or fetch an existing object should be minimal and extractable.

I did learn a rule of thumb for deciding when to replace an if statement with polymorphism. If you find yourself saying "I don't want to deal with this, I wish it were handled for me," there's a good chance that you could benefit from some polymorphism. Also, if you find yourself checking the same condition multiple times in a function (as we had in the original implementation), you might want to consider whether polymorphism will help you.

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Experiments in Firmware Hacking

I got a new ethernet-ready printer today, and wanted to add it to my existing wireless network. This is not the usual home wireless network use case - most people want to share an upstream connection with a bunch of wireless clients. I wanted to connect a wired device to a wireless network. I first tried using a spare Airport Express. That worked perfectly. Then, I decided to try getting my Linksys WRT54G v2 to work. When I realized that the stock firmware was definitely not up to the task, I grabbed Tomato. It claims to be solid, fast, and AJAX-y with realtime, SVG charts. How could I resist. However, the settings that I needed weren't obvious at first. After some fiddling, I think I've made it work. I'll share them here in case they're useful to somebody.

The most important setting is Wireless Mode (under Basic/Network). Here's my current best understanding of these modes:

Access PointThis is what the Linksys router would do with the default firmware. It allows wireless clients to connect to it in infrastructure mode, and will route packets between the wireless network, the LAN network, and the WAN network (with NAT).
Access Point + WDSI think this may work like the Airport Express' WDS Remote mode. That would mean that it can accept wireless clients and simultaneously connect to a WDS network.
Wireless ClientThis mode appeared to work like the Wireless Ethernet Bridge mode, except with NAT. It appeared that the router will can run a DHCP server on the LAN interfaces. It also requires that the WAN port be configured, which seems very strange to me.
Wireless Ethernet BridgeThis is the one that ended up doing what I need. As far as I can tell, the WAN port is disabled. The device connects to an existing wireless network. It will then route packets between the wired and wireless network without NAT. Furthermore, contrary to other reports, it appears that you can connect devices to more than one of the LAN ports. I had both my printer and my laptop connected to LAN ports, and things still seemed to be working.
WDSI think this may be similar to the Airport Express' "WDS Relay" mode.

It might be fun to pick up a WRT54GL. (The 54G has been simplified and will no longer work with most custom firmware. The 54GL restores the missing features. It appears to have been created specifically so that people can continue to use alternative firmware.)

Sunday, August 03, 2008

Date Formatting in Javascript


I found myself doing some stuff in Javascript. In particular, I needed to be able to turn a Date into HTML specific to the application that I'm working on. Let's say that the server sends us a task's creation date. We need to format it:

var fromServer = Date.parse("Sun Aug 03 2008 23:12:52 GMT-0400 (EDT)");

td.innerHTML = format_date(fromServer);

<span class="date">2008-08-03</span><span class="time">11:12 PM</span>
However, and I have no guarantee that it will always be a parseable date. In fact, the server sends '-' for dates that don't exist. We still need to output something.
var fromServer = "-";

td.innerHTML = format_date(fromServer);


I would like format_date to accept either a Date that should be formatted, or a string that should be passed along verbatim (with only necessary HTML character entity escaping). How can we do this in an object-oriented fashion?

Attempt 1

The default object-oriented mindset would encourage us to use polymorphism. We have an object, and we want to be able to call a method on that object. Well, we have a Date object.

Since this is Javascript, we could stick an extra method onto Date.prototype that would let us do this. While we're at it, we can put a similar function onto String.prototype:

Date.prototype.formatAsAppSpecificHTML = function() {
return "<span>" + this.getFullYear() + ... + "</span><span>" + this.getHours() ... + "</span>";

String.prototype.formatAsAppSpecificHTML = function() {
return this;

function format_date(o) {
return o.formatAsAppSpecificHTML();

There are some problems with this.

  1. We have an ugly, ugly method name. This is because we're mixing abstractions. A Date, in general, shouldn't know how to format itself in this way. Why not? Because it probably doesn't apply to most usages of Date. It may be a common behavior in my application, but its a nonsensical behavior in your application. Since the method is very context-specific, the name has to be equally specific.
  2. This only works in an "open" language that lets us add methods to an existing class/prototype (Ruby and Lua (and arguably C#) fall into this camp, Java and C++ do not). Even if your language has the necessary support, you still have to wonder whether it's a good idea to handle stuff this magical.
  3. It's not obvious. You don't normally connect Date and String. You don't expect to see methods shared between them. They are very orthogonal primitives. Yet we've tied them together in an unnatural way. In order for somebody to discover this, they need to think to look in two (potentially distant) places in the code.

Attempt 2

Polymorphism is a form of runtime decision making. Rather than use language constructs (such as 'if' and '? :'), polymorphism leverages the power of pointers. Since Polymorphism created some problems in this example, what if we switch to use a more traditional (i.e. not object-oriented) solution?

function format_date(o) {
if (o.constructor === Date) {
return "<span>" + o.getFullYear() + ... + "</span><span>" + o.getHours() ... + "</span>";
} else {
return o.toString();

This approach also creates some problems. We've simply moved the complexity further up the ladder. Before, the knowledge that a task may or may not have a creation date was strewn across 2 types: Date and String. Looking at either type in isolation, you only see half of the picture. You might not realize that you can take anything that comes from the server and format it correctly. Now, however, that knowledge is pushed in your face. We're making explicit decisions about concrete types wherever we need to. It's easy to get it right once. So far, we're only handling formatting. What if we also want to draw a timeline? What if we want to find the earliest task in a list of tasks? What if you want to relate a task to source control submissions that occurred while the task was active. In all of these cases, you will need to deal with the fact that a task might or might not have a starting date. At some point, somebody's going to forget that they need to check this, and there's going to be a bug.

Attempt 3

If object-oriented didn't work, and procedural didn't work, what are we going to do? Well, actually, I lied. The first attempt used one form of object-oriented abstraction. There are many more. Both of the attempts so far have suffered from primitive obsession. They dealt with both Strings and Dates. In actuality, we don't want to concern ourselves with either of these. We actually have something different - we have an OptionalDate. An OptionalDate knows whether it represents an actual date or whether it represents no date at all. It can format itself correctly in either case, and can be compared to other OptionalDates for sorting purposes. In fact, OptionalDate handles any operation that needs to work with both actual dates and "not dates".

function format_date(o) {
return o.format();

function OptionalDate(d) {
this.d = d;

OptionalDate.prototype.format() {
if (d) {
return "<span>" + this.d.getFullYear() + ... + "</span><span>" + this..getHours() ... + "</span>"
} else {
return "-";

What makes this a better solution? After all, the code looks very similar to the code in attempt 2.

  1. It localizes the code better than attempt 2. Rather than checking for the presence of a date all throughout your code base, you can collect all those if/else statements in one place. You also get the chance for some pretty cool higher-order programming, where OptionalDate has a method that takes a function to be called if the OptionalDate actually has a date.
  2. It also gives us a better place to hang domain-specific code. Hey, business logic has to live somewhere. It never seems right to put it on the primitive objects, and it also doesn't make sense to put it at the highest level of abstraction. Business logic is the foundation upon which you build an application. As a foundation, it needs a separate place to live.
  3. It makes more sense. When a new programmer is brought onto the team, they will be able to better understand just what is going on. This is extremely important. I believe that, if a person ever has a question about the code, it's a good sign that the code should change. That doesn't mean that you actually take the time to refactor the code, but it's a sign that this is a place that could use some attention.

My Solution

In the end, I went with something close to Attempt 2. This was actually my first choice; Attempt 1 was purely synthetic. I'm working with a legacy code base, and I'm a little wary about introducing big changes just yet. I'm also very conscious about time. In any case, this is an improvement over what was there before (it just treated the date/time as an opaque string, which wouldn't work at all for my requirements).


There are definitely some problems for which the object-oriented noun/verb paradigm breaks down. Or, perhaps stated more precisely, there are problems where that paradigm confuses more than it helps. However, that isn't true in this case. We were able to introduce some good refactorings even while staying true to the spirit of good design.

You may wonder why I care so much. I mean, any of the attempts would have solved the problem perfectly well. Why spend time even thinking about it? I believe that pragmatism is an important trait in programmers, but so too is learning. Whenever you start working on a problem, you need to choose a direction to pursue. Until you start walking, you'll never make progress. You may find yourself at a dead-end, but you wouldn't have known if you hadn't gone that way. My goal is to develop a strong enough design sense that the path that I choose with little thought tends to be one that will work out in the long run. Programming is both tactical and strategic. Most programmers develop their tactical skill as a natural part of writing code. I'm trying to sharpen my strategic skill.

Blogger Timestamping

Interesting thing about Blogger - it looks like the "Posted by... at..." clause uses the time the post was started, not the time that you eventually push the big Publish button.

F is for Fail

It's really sad to see code copied-and-pasted. I feel like a teacher who is grading a test, only to find that two kids have exactly the same answers. It's even sadder to see copied-and-pasted comments. That's like seeing that two kids have exactly the same answers, and both kids' answers are wrong.

Monday, July 21, 2008

Object Creation in Ext JS

Ext JS has a useful object creation pattern. Most constructors can be passed a hash of configuration parameters. This can be used instead of the prototype creation pattern (not to be confused with Javascript's prototypical inheritance). Rather than create new objects that are copies of an existing object, you create objects based on a set of configuration data.

You want an example? OK. Today, I was creating context menus for items in a tree. There is a global pool of possible actions, and each node responds to a different subset of them. When the user right-clicks on a node, I need to

  1. Create a Menu instance
  2. Add all of the appropriate menu items to it
  3. Show the menu
I had hoped that I could create one menu item instance per possible action (20 or so), and then re-use them in different Menu instances.
var actionMenuMap = {
addChild: new Ext.menu.Item({text:"Add child", icon:"add.png"}),
delete: new Ext.menu.Item({text:"Delete", icon:"delete.png"}),
fireZeMissiles: new Ext.menu.Item({text:"Fire ze Missiles!", icon:"fire.png"})

var nodeActions = ["addChild", "delete"]; //in practice, this would come from the node itself

//dangerous nesting ahead!
new Menu({
items: nodeActions.map(function(a) {
return actionMenuMap[a];

That didn't work - it seemed like I couldn't share a menu item instance between menu instances. I might be able to get it to work by removing menu items after the menu is dismissed, but I don't actually need to. I can simply hold on to the configuration information.

var actionMenuMap = {
addChild: {text:"Add child", icon:"add.png"},
delete: {text:"Delete", icon:"delete.png"},
fireZeMissiles: {text:"Fire ze Missiles!", icon:"fire.png"}

var nodeActions = ["addChild", "delete"]; //in practice, this would come from the node itself

//now we're cooking with functional programming!
new Menu({
items: nodeActions.map(function(a) {
return new Ext.menu.Item(actionMenuMap[a]);

In case you are not familiar, map is a function that is present in every functional language and many dynamic languages. It does not exist in Javascript natively, but is added by Prototype, jQuery, dojo, Mochikit, and probably every other Javascript framework. Here's a sample implementation for reference:

Array.prototype.map = function(f) {
if (typeof(f) !== "function") {
throw new Error("map takes a function");

var result = new Array(this.length);
for (var i = 0; i < this.length; ++i) {
result[i] = f(this[i]);
return result;

What could possibly make this better? In addition to taking a hash, allow the constructor to take a function. That function manipulates the object after the rest of the construction runs, allowing you to add children or manipulate settings or calculate values. This would be pure icing, of course. Factory functions also feel a lot more lightweight to me than factory objects. See also Rails' version of the K combinator.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Please encode the patterns that you see

As my software career has advanced, I've steadily become more cynical and bitter. This isn't good, and it's something that I'm trying to work on. It's hard to go a day without having one of those "you've got to be kidding me" moments. "I can't believe they did it like that." "What were they thinking?" "Hasn't anybody ever tried to do this before?" "There has to be an easier way."

Case in point: I recently read that SWFObject was THE way to embed swf files in your HTML. Fine, I though. I'll give it a try. Within minutes, I ran into something simple that it couldn't do. When you call the function that embeds the swf, it might not actually do the operation immediately - it might wait until the page initialization has progressed beyond a certain point, and then inject the code. I needed to run some code AFTER the swf had been embedded in the page (for sure). There's no way that I could see to do this with the stock SWFobject. Despite the fact that SWFObject inherently depends on event dispatch to work, it doesn't dispatch enough of its own events to be useful to me.

As I started to look at the code to see if I could work it in, I stumbled across the following snippet:

var att = {};
if (attObj && typeof attObj === OBJECT) {
for (var i in attObj) {
if (attObj[i] != Object.prototype[i]) { // Filter out prototype additions from other potential libraries
att[i] = attObj[i];

"Wow!" I thought. "That looks like it would be useful to lots of people." As it turns out, it is very useful - even to the SWFObject developers, who used the same pattern twice more in the same 58-line function:

var par = {}; 
if (parObj && typeof parObj === OBJECT) {
for (var j in parObj) {
if (parObj[j] != Object.prototype[j]) { // Filter out prototype additions from other potential libraries
par[j] = parObj[j];
if (flashvarsObj && typeof flashvarsObj === OBJECT) {
for (var k in flashvarsObj) {
if (flashvarsObj[k] != Object.prototype[k]) { // Filter out prototype additions from other potential libraries
if (typeof par.flashvars != UNDEF) {
par.flashvars += "&" + k + "=" + flashvarsObj[k];
else {
par.flashvars = k + "=" + flashvarsObj[k];
That general pattern appears at least 9 times in the code. It's a good thing they put it in a reusable functio... oh wait, they didn't. Instead, they dutifully pasted the code (comment and all) 8 times.

OK, something's going on. Maybe I've become a much better programmer in the past year; maybe everybody else is getting worse; maybe I'm off my rocker; maybe there's some strange performance or compatibility tweak that prevented them from doing what seems plainly obvious to me. Removing the obvious duplication would have simplified their code, making it more readable (and possibly obviating the need for the accompanying comment).

It's the little things like this that make me wonder if we're actually moving the state-of-the-art forward at all. If we can't see (or don't care about) the duplication at the micro scale, how will we re-use software at any broader level?

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Planescape: Effortless

I was amazed to learn that Planescape: Torment, a game released in 1999, is still playable under Vista. I installed it the other night (intending to finish it this time), patched it (using the most recent official patch, which is probably 8 years old), and started it without a hitch. I'm sure some combination of Microsoft's fervent dedication to backwards compatibility, nVidia's seemingly rock-solid drivers, and Black Isle's crack team of developers made this possible.

Recently, Scott Hanselman interviewed Steven Frank of Panic (a Mac software developer). In the interview, it was revealed that Mac users are less worried about backwards compatibility. Apple has completely axed support for Classic mode, which pretty much kills any software more than 8 years old. As a Mac user, I agree. I'm not that worried about old applications not working. But that's because I'm talking about applications. If an old application stops working, there's a good chance that somebody has written a more recent, and probably better, replacement.

Games are a different beast, though. Games are closer to movies or novels. How would people feel if they couldn't read Les Misérables anymore? Or if somebody went and mucked with Star Wars, and then threatened to not publish the theatrical release anymore? Well, we know what happens then: thousands of fans get really really angry. People crave old stuff. Really great content is timeless. Games should be treated the same way. Ever since "game designer" has become an official title, games have been steadily becoming more than children's amusements. There's often some great narrative buried in there, wrapped up tight inside a husk of decaying code. Eventually, that code won't run on new computers, and the narrative will be lost forever.

Of course, now we have virtualization, so maybe it's not such a big problem.

On Succinctness

One of the reasons that I've been blogging has been to help me communicate succinctly. I've been trying to keep my posts small without being lifeless. I want to balance terseness with expressiveness. If you read this blog, how am I doing? What could I do better?

On Usability

I've been slowly learning that, in my heart, I'm a usability guy. I'm always concerned for the experience that end users will have with software. I care about making it easier for people to do what they want to do. When it comes to user interfaces, I like bling, but only when it helps the user accomplish a task or understand an interaction. I love Expose. It's such a simple but powerful concept. It's also made for a great demo. I hate Flip 3D. It's pretty, but also pretty pointless.

I've been interested in API design for a long time, too. As a developer, I have used some libraries that were an absolute joy, and other libraries that were a total mess. My recent foray into Flex (specifically, getting the Tree control to lazily load its data) reminded me what it's like to use a bad API.

I mentioned to a coworker the other day that, if you're developing a library, you should be at last as good a developer as the people that will end up using it. To me, it looked like Adobe (or Macromedia - I don't really know who's responsible) put all of their junior developers on the component library project. As a result, we're blessed with the interface IDataDescriptor, whose methods include isBranch() and hasChildren(). What's the difference? Should they ever be different? Who knows?!

I realize that I misspoke to my coworker. I should have said that people developing libraries should have a code aesthetic sense. I don't mean code aesthetics in terms of indentation or brace style or what have you. I mean that API designers need to consider the people that will end up using the library. Just as the hallmark of an Apple Design Award winner is that users "just get it", a good API should also be so easy to understand that it seems obvious to you. As in, "why would anybody make this API any different?"

Design is hard. It takes a conscious effort (well, for most of us). That's why it's important to do. If you're a developer, ask yourself: is this easy enough to understand. Remember, you're writing for an audience - your code does not exist for your eyes only. Even if it did, you're liable to forget everything before you come back to work on it again. If you're a manager, make sure there's enough space for developers to focus on this. If it looks like you're going to miss a deadline, that doesn't give you carte blanche to pressure developers out of finishing their work. Just because the code works doesn't mean it's done.

If you can't make an API grokkable, at least document it well. The standard Java and MSDN docs are full of nonsense.

setFoo(IFurple f) - sets foo to f

Really? I wouldn't have guessed. This tells me nothing. What is foo and why do I care. Why is foo a furple? If anybody ever asks a question about your API, it's a sign that something needs to change. Maybe you just need to add some documentation. Maybe you need a high-level wiki page explaining what the library is trying to do. Maybe you need to rename a method. Maybe you really do need to change the API. Or maybe you just need to smack the developer on the head and tell them to read the Javadocs first. But if you don't change anything, the problem is just going to repeat itself. Who knows - maybe you'll discover a bug or race condition along the way.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Vista Usabaility... It's Got Issues

I bought a Dell with Vista on it a few months ago. I figured that it was high time that I upgraded to Microsoft's newfangled operating system. It hasn't been too bad. There are some hiccups, but every complex piece of software has its share of those. I'm sure Microsoft will try its hardest to fix those with time.

On the other hand, Aero is pretty much terrible. Sure, it's pretty (at least at first). My impression is that the rendering infrastructure is also quite good. But holy cow, Microsoft needs to hire some actual UI designers. Not just artists, but people who understand user interfaces. There are some reasonably amateurish mistakes in Aero. Even if they seemed like good ideas at the time, after using Vista for about a week, you really start to notice them.

I was first surprised to see how mousovers have invaded Explorer. Look at the following picture. Which icon is selected, and which icon am I pointing my mouse at?
Can you believe that it's easy to delete the wrong file?

The new, unified look for the windows isn't too bad. The window titlebars are translucent, with a frosted glass appearance. At first I though that the effect would be distracting. You know what, I was right.

Explorer windows look a little bare, but the whole top of the window is available for your dragging pleasure. Well, almost all of it. If you manage to click in the upper-left of the window's title-less-bar, you get your friendly system menu.

Finally, my absolute least favorite thing. For whatever reason, the rollovers that cause me to shred the wrong file have also made it into the standard tree control. Here, when your mouse leaves the tree control's bounds, the tree "fades away..." It literally disappears. Which can leave the following unfortunate situation:

Wait, I think maybe there's a bit more to it...

Ah, I bet we can expand that.

There we go!
Now, you might be asking yourself "who cares?" It doesn't seem like it's that big of a problem. True, in Explorer, the only inconvenience is that I don't know at a glance if my folder contains any items. It's a problem, but not a huge one. So, let's take a look at the Java programmer's friend, Eclipse.

Search results, you say. Search results, indeed. And people are trying to emulate it! Little hint: just because Microsoft does it, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Even the Windows Classic theme isn't safe. The "expandos" in the classic TreeView fade out too.

If only Microsoft supported third-party themes... oh wait, you need to replace system DLLs to do that. Still, I don't know if I can stand the horrible usability of the stock UI. Hey Microsoft: ever wonder why so many themes and theming tools exist for your platform? I can think of a reason.

Even with all my bitching, I think Microsoft's heart was in the right place here. They realized that they needed a better rendering infrastructure (with features like compositing on the video card) and a more slick UI. Apple had been stealing the show on this issue for the past seven twenty-three years. Microsoft needs to go back to the drawing board. They need a fresher UI in the next version of Windows. And they need fewer people working on it. I think Windows is going to buckle under its own weight within 10 years. Apple continues to embellish their own UI, but it's often both functional and pretty. That's why people go ga-ga over it. Expose is a great demo, but I use it daily. Same with Dashboard.

I can only imagine what it must have been like to have seen this live:

... especially when this is what people were used to...

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Flex Builder 3 Debugger on Mac OSX

I was having a hard time getting Flex Builder on my Mac to behave. I came across a post at Big Spaceship Labs that put me on the right path. I tried things, and came up with a reasonable solution, which I added as a comment to the original post.

This technique is useful for keeping several Flash Players on your system (or anything, really). I think I read that MultiSafari uses this trick. The trick is to change an application's bundle identifier. You may have noticed that Mac OSX seems to magically know about all the applications on your system, even though you didn't use an installer for most of them. It uses the bundle identifier (and I believe the bundle version) to keep track of them. I believe that Max OSX treats all applications with the same bundle identifier and version as the same. Internally, they probably form a composite key in a map. Furthermore, most associations (such as "Open With") are made to the bundle identifier, not the application's path. This is so that you can move an application to a new directory without breaking anything. It also means that, if you have 2 applications with the same bundle identifier and version, there is no way to choose which one will launch.

It's surprising how well the whole application list works on Mac OSX. I still had some problems in 10.4, but 10.5 seems to be rock solid in this area. And, when application developers know what they're doing, it works pretty well.

Sunday, June 08, 2008

Exceptions in Multithreaded Programming

Exceptions are great. I've used them since C++. It's even sweeter that more modern languages (Java, C#, Ruby, etc.) have enhanced them with information like stack traces and nested exceptions. Procedural programming will never go back to error codes.

However, exceptions are increasingly insufficient for the work that I do. I suspect that this is true of everyone. Anybody who has done multithreaded programming in Java knows this problem:

class WorkItem implements Runnable {
public void run() {
try {
//do some work
} catch (SomeException e) {

Exceptions fall apart in a multithreaded environment. Take the example. What are our choices? We could silently swallow the exception (bad style, and also probably wrong). We could write an error to stderr and quit (bad for users). We could throw a RuntimeException (which will forcefully terminate the thread, which might not be too bad). In practice, we should probably notify somebody. But whom? Exceptions fit so nicely into the framework of the call stack - simply unwind the stack until you find an appropriate exception handler. In a multithreaded environment, you have several independent call stacks. It's likely that the code which will respond to the error is running in a different thread. It's insufficient to unwind one thread's call stack - you need a cross-thread error handling mechanism.

What's the solution in Java? I don't know. Erlang's approach is interesting. In Erlang, you can link processes together. By default, any error in one process will kill every linked process. That sounds bad, but it's a reasonable default. You can instead register yourself as a "system" process. Rather than being outright killed by friendly fire, system processes are informed of their comrades' fate. They are able to decide what to do about it. They could restart the failed process, or send a notification, or log it, or whatever. The important thing is that it's automatic. Once you've linked the processes together, the Erlang runtime takes care of notifying other processes about fatal errors and so forth. It's pretty neat

Maybe I'll eventually get to write something in Erlang. I don't know how easy it is to use in day-to-day life, but it seems pretty awesome in theory.

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Aspect Oriented Programming in Javascript

Working with YUI today, I found that I wanted to augment a built-in method. I am using a custom subclass of TreeView. My TreeView registers some mouse callbacks for the generated HTML elements that compose the tree. My TreeView needs to know whenever a Node is refreshed (i.e. whenever a Node regenerates its HTML) so that I can re-register all of my callbacks. The standard YUI Node base class doesn't do this.

This sounded like the sort of thing that could be solved using Aspect Oriented Programming. I wanted to run some of my own code after every invocation of some predefined method. It turns out that AOP in Javascript is pretty trivial. There might be a framework out there, but it wasn't even worth looking. My first implementation simply replaced the existing method with one of my own design, which delegated to the original method. After doing this in a few other places, I clobbered together the following function, whose name sucks, to simplify the whole mess.

function augment(obj, fn, options) {
var original = obj[fn];

//make copies of the fields in options in case it changes
//between now and when the generated method is called
//(which may be a long time).
var before = options.before;
var replace = options.replace;
var after = options.after;

obj[fn] = function() {
if (before) {
before.apply(this, arguments);

if (replace) {
//TODO: we should probably send original along with
//this call, possibly embedded in arguments
replace.apply(this, arguments);
} else {
original.apply(this, arguments);

if (after) {
after.apply(this, arguments);

augment(YAHOO.widget.TreeView.prototype, "draw", {
after:function() {

augment(YAHOO.widget.Node.prototype, "refresh", {
after:function() {

//also needed (for those playing along at home):
YAHOO.widget.TreeView.prototype.nodeRefreshed = function() { };

It's actually pretty simple. I grab a reference to the original function. We create a new, closed function. It can refer to the original function and the augmentations, but they are not visible outside the closure. That was the primary driver for me - my previous implementation was storing the original functions in global variables, which polluted the global namespace. And we use Function's handy apply(), which allows us to be ignorant of the parameters that the original function takes. In the sample, I also register a dummy implementation of nodeRefreshed() so that I don't need to perform a null check in my augmented refresh().

One improvement that I would like to make, but is probably impossible, is to make the environment for replace() be identical to the environment for the original function. As it is, any variables that are closed by the original function are unreferenceable by the new function. This is particularly problematic when you only want to make minor changes to a function. You copy the original function's source code into replace, and make the minor changes that you need, but it doesn't work because the variable bindings are different. I think you can do this in Lua. I know you can do it in Ruby. I don't think Javascript has the necessary support yet (and, since we always need to support IE, the necessary support will likely never be available).

So, it's good to know that AOP is so easy in Javascript. I've never really used AOP before, though I work with people who have, and who seem to like it. However, AOP's utility here is only because of YUI's heavy use of inheritance. I've ranted against that before. If YUI's TreeControl didn't try to do everything itself, there would be a lot of natural seams that I could use to inject my own logic.

I hope to post soon about my experiences with YUI's TreeControl, Drag and Drop library, and other components.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Swing Does Components Better Than Component Libraries Do

I'm currently trying to get a handle on Macromedia Adobe Flex using the free, open-source Flex SDK. Flex is a set of tools to create flash-based "applications" using XML UI definition and Actionscript for everything else.

It seems that Adobe has adopted some Microsoft conventions for programmatic UI creation and management. In particular, components in Flex have a long and convoluted lifecycle. In Web Forms, I never understood why I shouldn't create child controls in my Control's constructor; Flex's UIComponent has a createChildren() method. I still don't know why I shouldn't create child controls in the constructor.

In my Swing programming, on the other hand, I don't seem to run across these problems. As far as I know, a Swing component has one and only one step in its initialization process - the constructor. That certainly makes things simpler. I don't have to wonder "What happens if I put this here?" or, more commonly, "Why does this thing not work? Oh, somebody messed up the initialization code."

Actually, most of my frustration here is directed to ASP.NET 1.1. Things may have gotten better in later versions (though I doubt it), and I don't really know how good or bad it is in Flex land. Still, this dredged up bad memories for me. Thick base classes suck!

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Why Inheritance Is Bad

3D graphics programmers, if there are any that read this blog, are familiar with gimbal lock. The Wikipedia article makes an analogy to compass directions. If you tell somebody at the north pole to face south, which direction are they facing? You have no way of knowing, because south loses its meaning at the north pole. At any other place on the planet, your location and direction are completely independent. At the poles, direction has no meaning in the cartographic coordinate system. Two previously independent variables have now become linked.

In programming, when you derive from a base class, the classes are in a state of gimbal lock. We can vary the subclass as much as we want without affecting the base class. However, a change to the base class will not only affect our subclass, but every other subclass out there. Suppose that our base class provides some core data processing functionality, and its various subclasses encapsulate different data sources. So far, so good. We've managed to avoid duplication. If we come up with a new data source, we can simply create a new subclass. However, what happens if we want an existing data source to send data to a different set of processing rules? A class would need to have more than one base class, except in a way different from normal multiple inheritance. No programming language that I've seen can support this scenario.

A hallmark of good object-oriented design is that classes have one and only one responsibility. Why is this important? It makes the code simple, it makes the code testable, it decreases coupling, it might increase cohesion, and it's just plain nicer to read. When you derive from a base class, your class has all of its explicit responsibilities, and the responsibilities of each of its ancestor classes. In our example, each subclass is itself responsible for knowing the ins and outs of a particular data source. Since they all derive from a common base class, they are also responsible for knowing how to process the data. This example only deals with 2 responsibilities, but real systems deal with hundreds.

Remember that inheritance is often used to represent taxonomies. You might have classes such as Animal > Mammal > Giraffe or Widget > Button > Pushbutton. You might say that things on the right are defined in terms of things on the left, but that's not exactly true. A giraffe doesn't have lungs because it's a mammal; we call it a mammal because it has lungs. Using inheritance to describe something (using, for example, interface inheritance) makes a lot of sense. Using inheritance to define something doesn't.

Adventures with the Scriptaculous Ajax.Autocompleter

I had a chance to use the Scriptaculous autocompleter control at work the other day. Since we are using Ruby on Rails, it was easy enough to use text_field_with_auto_complete() to generate the relevant HTML.

The client noted that it was difficult to enter a new word if it was too close to an existing word. For example, he would type "expensive", and the system would suggest "not expensive". When he would hit Enter, it would replace what he had typed with "not expensive". This is because the Scriptaculous control doesn't support the case where no item is selected - one item is always selected, and it defaults to being the first item.

I decided to have a peek at the source code. In maybe 15 minutes, I had managed to convince it that "nothing selected" is a valid case. Unfortunately, I didn't refactor the code in any way - now every autocompleter behaves this way.

Scriptaculous uses prototype's Class.create() to generate 2 classes: Autocompleter.Base and its sole subclass: Ajax.Autocompleter. From the source code:

Autocompleter.Base handles all the autocompletion functionality that's independent of the data source for autocompletion. This includes drawing the autocompletion menu, observing keyboard and mouse events, and similar.

I appreciate their desire to re-use code. Unfortunately, the use of inheritance has caused the whole mess to suffer some sort of object-oriented gimbal lock. It's easy to create a new Autocompleter that gets its data from a different source; it's much more work to create an Ajax autocompleter with different behavior.

If I have some time (that is, when I'm not busy complaining about something), I might see if I can refactor the scriptaculous source to further separate the data source of an autocompleter from its interaction controller, using some method other than inheritance.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Ruby in LISP clothing

As it turns out, Ruby's syntax is somewhat flexible. As an example, parentheses are sometimes optional when calling a method.
puts "Oh hai!"
puts("Oh hai!")

link_to_remote "Go there", :url => { :controller => :there, :action => :go }
link_to_remote("Go there", { :url => { :controller => :there, :action => :go } })
The only time the parentheses are needed is when the invocation would otherwise be ambiguous:
link_to_remote h text, :url => { ... }
(h is the HTML escaping function. link_to_remote may actually automatically escape the HTML, but I'm not sure.)

Ruby can't tell what the user is trying to do. The normal way to fix this is to add some parentheses to the call:
link_to_remote(h(text), :url => { ... })
link_to_remote(h text, :url => { ... })
however, it is also possible to use LISP-like parentheses with the same result:
link_to_remote (h text), :url => {...}
(link_to_remote (h text), :url => {...})
Which is better? Certainly one of the first pair is more conventional. For some reason, though, I found myself migrating to the second pair. I suspect it's a combination of
  • I try to avoid using parentheses in method calls in Ruby as much as possible
  • LISP is awesome
  • I have done some Objective-C programming, in which you [object send:message]

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Consistency on Rails

The Ruby on Rails crowd makes a big deal about consistency. They claim that Rails is easy and fast for development partially because it favors convention over configuration. I guess the thought is that you don't need to write any configuration. Plus, once you've worked on a few Rails apps, you pretty much know where everything is.

So far, I've found a lot of that to be pretty much true. Migrations, routes, controllers, views, database configuration - there's a place for all of them, and they're pretty much exactly where I would expect them. However, I've often found myself struggling when actually writing the code. I'm either going to the documentation constantly, or even peeking in the Rails source. (It turns out that some options to methods aren't documented, and the rails plugins that we are using have poorer documentation than the core).

I only have 2 small examples at hand, but I could write about many more annoyances.
  • link_to and link_to_remote both seem similar on the surface. One will generate a normal hyperlink that will navigate the browser; the other will generate an AJAX link that will interpret the resultant response as either HTML to be embedded or Javascript to be executed.

    Both allow you to specify the url using :controller and :action. However, they have very different signatures, and it trips me up everytime.
    link_to "Help", { :controller => :help, :action => :sample }
    link_to_remote "Help", :url => { :action => :help, :action => :sample }
    Did you see that? The only difference between the two is that one requires the URL-related options to be packaged in a hash named :url, while the other disallows the hash
  • When using the form helper methods such as text_field and text_field_tag, you must be careful. Here is an example:
    text_field :post, :name <input id="foo_bar" name="foo[bar]" size="30" type="text" />
    text_field_tag 'post[name]' <input id="foo[bar]" name="foo[bar]" type="text" />
    As you can see, if you change from one to the other, you might need to also update you RJS files (or remember to set an explicit ID). This would have all been avoided if text_field had simply generated id and name attributes with the same value.
Rails certainly has its good points, but the small details are sometimes infuriating.