Breakpoint Jam Dallas

A jar of Breakpoint Jam

The spring tour continued in Dallas with our second Breakpoint Jam.

There was a mix of ‘conditional breakpoints’ old and new joining in to play a set of James Dempsey and the Breakpoints songs for the crowd:

Next jam is next week at CocoaConf San Jose!

In the meantime, sign up for our newsletter to find out about live shows and music releases.

Nathan Sjoquist, Ben Scheirman, Nathan Eror, Daniel Pasco and James Dempsey at microphones, with instruments, performing.

Dallas Breakpoint Jam with Nathan Sjoquist, Ben Scheirman,
Nathan Eror, Daniel Pasco and James Dempsey
Photo by Solomon Klein

Chicago Breakpoint Jam Recap

A jar of Breakpoint Jam

Last Friday night at CocoaConf Chicago, we had a lot of fun at the first Breakpoint Jam.

Thank you to those who stepped up as ‘conditional breakpoints’ for the evening to play a set of James Dempsey and the Breakpoints songs for the crowd:

The next jam will be at CocoaConf Dallas in early April.  I hope to see you there!

In the meantime, sign up for our newsletter to find out about live shows and music releases.

Introducing the Breakpoint Jam at CocoaConf Chicago

Next week at CocoaConf Chicago, we are doing something new that we’re calling a Breakpoint Jam.

A jar of Breakpoint Jam

Readying our first bit of Breakpoint Jam

A Breakpoint Jam is an ever-changing pickup group performing James Dempsey and the Breakpoints songs.

The idea is simple—whoever is in town for a conference shows up and plays on whatever instruments they’ve brought or borrowed.

The players will change city to city, but the goal is always the same—performing a casual, entertaining jam of songs for conference attendees.

To get things rolling next week in Chicago, we’ve invited conference speakers to the jam.

(Once we get a few under out belt, we’ll open future jams up to attendees.)

I’m looking forward to our first Breakpoint Jam next Friday at CocoaConf Chicago—I hope to see you there! •

Speaking of borrowed: If you are coming to CocoaConf Chicago and are local—Can we borrow your acoustic guitar?

Moving to new Objective-C literals

Last week, I moved one of my projects over to use the new Objective-C literals for NSNumber, NSArray and NSDictionary as well as the new syntax for boxing expressions into NSNumber and NSString objects.  Here are a few comments on how it went.

In a nutshell, the new language features allow code like [NSNumber numberWithInteger:7] to be replaced by a more compact syntax like @7.  The LLVM site has a full description of the new syntax and usage.

Refactoring in Xcode

I ran the ‘Convert To Modern Objective-C Syntax’ refactoring tool in Xcode 4.4 to do the conversion.  There is no option to choose which modern syntax features you wish to adopt before the conversion begins, but in Xcode 4.4, you can choose diff by diff which changes you wish to keep.  Xcode seems to think my Objective-C syntax is already modern enough in other respects, since the only changes the refactoring made was to move to Obj-C literals.

Even if you want to introduce the new literals into your code manually, you might find it interesting to run the refactoring tool just to browse through its proposed changes.  You can cancel the changes rather than apply them, but just by reviewing the proposed diffs, you might see use cases for Obj-C literals that may not have occurred to you.

There were more places than I was expecting where my code creates NSNumber instances from integer expressions and enums.  Also, before running the refactoring tool, it had not occurred to me how often the expression being boxed would just be a single variable holding a scalar value.

So there were numerous places where the updated code did something similar to the following:

NSInteger myValue = 0;
// Do some stuff that changes myValue
[myArray addObject:@(myValue)];

Before doing the conversion on my own code, I definitely underappreciated the power and usefulness of boxed expressions.

Overall, I found the refactoring in Xcode 4.4. to be easy and straightforward.  The Xcode project I converted was a medium-sized Objective-C project using the iOS 5.1 SDK.

A crashing issue to watch out for

There is a potential crashing issue that I ran into that you should be aware of.  In one spot, the code was relying on a nil value terminating the list of arguments to create an array.  So something like:

-useRequiredValue:(id)requiredObj optionalValue:(id)optionalObj {
   NSArray *array = 
         [NSArray arrayWithObjects:requiredObj, optionalObj, nil];
   // Do something useful with array

The method +arrayWithObjects: stops processing arguments when it hits the first nil argument.  The code above relies on that fact to create a one-object array when optionalObj is nil, and a two-object array when optionalObj exists.

The conversion changed the array creation to:

NSArray *array = @[requiredObj, optionalObj];

With array literals, relying on a terminating nil does not work.  Behind the scenes, a literal NSArray is created with +arrayWithObjects:count: which requires non-nil values.  So, after converting to Obj-C literals, an exception was thrown whenever the optional argument was nil.

A similar issue arises with dictionaries if you are relying on early nil-termination with +dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys: and then move to use an NSDictionary literal.

Note that this issue is not flagged by the refactoring tool or the static analyzer, so it is something to watch out for when converting to use Objective-C literals.

To address the issue, the options are either to revert to the previous code or change the code to something else.

I changed the code to something like this:

NSArray *array =
     (optionalObj != nil) ? @[requiredObj, optionalObj] : @[requiredObj];

I decided to stop using the ‘early nil’ approach for a few reasons.  The first is that I know I will be tempted to change that line of code to use a literal array every time I look at it, which will reintroduce the crash.  I could guard against that by adding an emphatic comment explaining the situation, to prevent myself from changing that line of code.  So, everytime I look at the code, I’ll be tempted to convert the line of code, and then have to read about why I can’t convert that line of code.

It seemed more maintainable to move to a different way of doing the same thing.  In addition, the new code is less tricky/clever than the old code and more explicit about what the result will be; no comment is needed.  I am a big fan of well-commented code, but I’m also a fan of code that is obvious enough that the code can clearly speak for itself.


In most cases, the new literal syntax leads to code that is both more compact and more readable.  In the above example, the new code is not much more compact than the original code, but, the intent is clearer, which I find more readable.  With numbers, ‘@3.6’ is more readable and compact than ‘[NSNumber numberWithFloat:3.6]’.  For arrays and dictionaries, I find that my eyes are not yet parsing literal array and dictionary creation as smoothly as more familiar Objective-C code, but I suspect that will change as I use and see the new constructs more often.

Boxed expressions may cause readability to suffer to some degree.  When you encounter something like ‘@(someVariable)’, it is ambiguous whether you are creating a number or string.  You need to know the type of the expression to know for certain.  In practice, descriptive variable names should make this less of an issue.

I find the code becomes less readable as the boxed expression inside the parenthesis becomes more complex and when Objective-C literals and boxed expressions are combined and nested.  We are moving from code that had giant billboards of [NSString stringWith…  or [NSNumber numberWith… proclaiming just what is being creating, to code which is definitely more compact, but may also be more difficult to read.  For example:

@{ValueAverage : @((self.currentValue - [self.relatedObject
currentValue]) / 2), BoundaryValues : @[@(self.maxValue), @(self.minValue)]}

Even after such a short time using the new syntax, I find that on balance, the literals and boxed expressions make for more readable and compact code, with a few cases where readability seems to suffer a bit.  It is also early in the game, in terms of using the new syntax on a day to day basis.  My opinion will continue to evolve as I use the new constructs more.

Backward binary compatibility and a little BOOL wrinkle

The new Objective-C literal functionality is handled in the compiler, so you must be using a recent version of the LLVM compiler to use this syntax.  Since the compiler generates code that uses existing object creation methods, the code you write and compile can run on previous versions of OS X or iOS.

So, even if you are targeting releases of your app on OS versions earlier than OS X 10.8, or iOS 6, you can use the new literals along with the new version of the tools.

I did encounter one wrinkle with BOOL literals.  To enable the compiler to properly deal with @YES and @NO to represent NSNumber BOOL values, two new language keywords were added to the Objective-C headers.

The iOS 5.1 SDK does not include these new keywords.  So, if you are using Xcode 4.4 and the iOS 5.1 SDK, you need to ‘box’ the BOOL values as expressions to compile: @(YES) and @(NO).

The Mountain Lion 10.8 SDK does have the new keywords as will SDKs moving forward, so this is just a minor transitional oddity.


Overall, I think the new Objective-C literals and boxed expressions are an excellent addition to the language.  I found converting to the new syntax using Xcode 4.4 refactoring to be a smooth process.  The only real bump I hit was in code where I was relying on early nil termination of arguments when creating an array.  The other wrinkle I encountered was the need to box BOOL values using Xcode 4.4. and the iOS 5.1 SDK.   I’m looking forward to using these new language features moving forward.

Is the end near for System Preferences?

Table comparing settings / preferences on Apple platforms

One of these things seems out of place. Can you spot it?

When Mountain Lion was announced back in February, I enjoyed reading John Gruber’s Daring Fireball account of his advance peek of the upcoming OS, including this section:

“Apps have been renamed for cross-OS consistency. iChat is now Messages; iCal is now Calendar; Address Book is now Contacts. Missing apps have been added: Reminders and Notes look like Mac versions of their iOS counterparts. Now that these apps exist for the Mac, to-dos have been removed from Calendar and notes have been removed from Mail, leaving Calendar to simply handle calendaring and Mail to handle email.”

While I don’t believe that the Mac should become an iOS clone, I do think that natural similarities between the platforms should be emphasized.

This made me wonder about the fate of System Preferences. Continue reading

Recording at The Annex

In the coming weeks, James Dempsey and the Breakpoints will be recording our first album at The Annex in Menlo Park, a Silicon Valley studio with a long and storied 35-year history.  As we get ready to do so, I wanted to describe the setting and share a little bit about why I find this place particularly special for the project ahead.

The gold records lining the walls highlight the long list of artists and celebrities The Annex has welcomed a over the years.  Windham Hill artists such as George Winston, plus many others including Joan Baez, Chris Martin, Alan Parsons, and Michael J. Fox have spent time in the studio, working on everything from recordings and rehearsals to videos and voice overs.  Even Steve Jobs came in once to do a quick voice over. There is an awesome vibe just walking into the place.

Gold records line the walls of The Annex studios

Gold records line the walls of The Annex studios
Photo by Adam Tow

Continue reading