What is the advantage of using this:
+ (CardPainter*) sharedPainter {
static CardPainter* sp = nil;
if (nil == sp) {
sp = [[CardPainter alloc] init];
}
return sp;
}
instead of this:
+ (CardPainter*) sharedPainter {
static CardPainter* sp = [[CardPainter alloc] init];
return sp;
}
The static variable initialization is performed only once, so I see no advantage of the former.
Well, at a compiler level there's several overlapping reasons… the simplest to think about is that static variables are stored in a dedicated data section of your compiled application, which is just mapped into memory as-is. So the compiler has to know precisely what that is at compile time. The result of any Objective-C method call is unpredictable at compile time by definition and in practice - you never know for sure that something "interesting" won't happen at runtime to change the behaviour of that method call, so you don't know for sure what will be returned.
This is all a bit different from e.g. C++, for various reasons (a key one being that C++ has constructors, whereas Objective-C does not). But even in C++ it's still frowned upon for several reasons:
Constructor order is unpredictable, but it's easy and common to have constructors depend on each other, meaning your program can have undefined behaviour at runtime (including data corruption or crashing).
Initialisation of lots of non-trivial objects can be expensive. Doing it all together at launch time might be efficient, but it makes your app slow to launch, which is far worse.
The latter point applies equally to Objective-C. The more you can avoid doing at launch time, and instead do just-in-time, on-demand, the better the user experience generally is.
[ Note that there is one noteable exception to the "no static object instances" rule, and that's strings, of the #"foo" form. Those are actually encoded in your app's data section as real instances (of a special NSString subclass) that just get mapped in at launch and magically work as-is. But that's very carefully architected and the compiler & runtime are tightly coupled on that aspect, to make sure it all works smoothly. It doesn't and cannot apply generally. ]
Because if you dont ask, you gonna initiatlite "*sp" any time you call the "sharedPainter", losing any data.
So, if you ask if sp is nil and the answer is FALSE means "sp" is already initialized and it return the instance. If the answer is true, that means that sp is not initialized and just in that case you call the init function.
Related
I often use simple non compile-time immutable objects: like an array #[#"a", #"b"] or a dictionary #{#"a": #"b"}.
I struggle between reallocating them all the time:
- (void)doSomeStuff {
NSArray<NSString *> *fileTypes = #[#"h", #"m"];
// use fileTypes
}
And allocating them once:
- (void)doSomeStuff {
static NSArray<NSString *> * fileTypes;
static dispatch_once_t onceToken;
dispatch_once(&onceToken, ^{
fileTypes = #[#"h", #"m"];
});
// use fileTypes
}
Are there recommendations on when to use each construct? Like:
depending on the size of the allocated object
depending on the frequency of the allocation
depending on the device (iPhone 4 vs iMac 2016)
...
How do I figure it out?
Your bullet list is a good start. Memory would be another consideration. A static variable will stay in memory from the time it is actually initialized until the termination of the app. Obviously a local variable will be deallocated at the end of the method (assuming no further references).
Readability is something to consider too. The reallocation line is much easier to read than the dispatch_once setup.
For a little array, I'd reallocate as the first choice. The overhead is tiny. Unless you are creating the array in a tight loop, performance will be negligible.
I would use dispatch_once and a static variable for things that take more overhead such as creating a date formatter. But then there is the overhead of reacting to the user changing the device's locale.
In the end, my thought process is to first use reallocation. Then I consider whether there is tangible benefit to using static and dispatch_once. If there isn't a worthwhile reason to use a static, I leave it a local variable.
Use static if the overhead (speed) of reallocation is too much (but not if the permanent memory hit is too large).
Your second approach is more complex. So you should use it, if it is needed, but not as a default.
Typically this is done when the object creating is extreme expensive (almost never) or if you need a single identity of the instance object (shared instance, sometimes called singleton, what is incorrect.) In such a case you will recognize that you need it.
Although this question could probably be closed as "primarily opinion-based", I think this question addresses a choice that programmers frequently make.
The obvious answer is: don't optimize, and if you do, profile first - because most of the time you'll intuitively address the wrong part of your code.
That being said, here's how I address this.
If the needed object is expensive to build (like the formatters per documentation) and lightweight on resources, reuse / cache the object.
If the object is cheap to build, create a new instance when needed.
For crucial things that run on the main thread (UI stuff) I tend to draw the line more strict and cache earlier.
Depending on what you need those objects for, sometimes there are valid alternatives that are cheaper but offer a similar programming comfort. For example, if you wanted to look up some chessboard coordinates, you could either build a dictionary {#"a1" : 0, #"b1" : 1, ...}, use an array alone and the indices, take a plain C array (which now has a much less price tag attached to it), or do a small integer-based calculation.
Another point to consider is where to put the cached object. For example, you could store it statically in the method as in your example. Or you could make it an instance variable. Or a class property / static variable. Sometimes caching is only the half way to the goal - if you consider a table view with cells including a date formatter, you can think about reusing the very same formatter for all your cells. Sometimes you can refactor that reused object into a helper object (be it a singleton or not), and address some issues there.
So there is really no golden bullet here, and each situation needs an individual approach. Just don't fall into the trap of premature optimization and trade clear code for bug-inviting, hardly readable stuff that might not matter to your performance but comes with sure drawbacks like increased memory footprint.
dispatch_once_t
This allows two major benefits: 1) a method is guaranteed to be called only once, during the lifetime of an application run, and 2) it can be used to implement lazy initialization, as reported in the Man Page below.
From the OS X Man Page for dispatch_once():
The dispatch_once() function provides a simple and efficient mechanism to run an initializer exactly once, similar to pthread_once(3). Well designed code hides the use of lazy initialization.
Some use cases for dispatch_once_t
Singleton
Initialization of a file system resource, such as a file handle
Any static variable that would be shared by a group of instances, and takes up a lot of memory
static, without dispatch_once_t
A statically declared variable that is not wrapped in a dispatch_once block still has the benefit of being shared by many instances. For example, if you have a static variable called defaultColor, all instances of the object see the same value. It is therefore class-specific, instead of instance-specific.
However, any time you need a guarantee that a block will be called only once, you will need to use dispatch_once_t.
Immutability
You also mentioned immutability. Immutability is independent of the concern of running something once and only once--so there are cases for both static immutable variables and instance immutable variables. For instance, there may be times when you need to have an immutable object initialized, but it still may be different for each instance (in cases where it's value depends on other instance variables). In that case, an immutable object is not static, and still may be initialized with different values from multiple instances. In this case, a property is derived from other instance variables, and therefore should not be allowed to be changed externally.
A note on immutability vs mutability, from Concepts in Objective-C Programming:
Consider a scenario where all objects are capable of being mutated. In your application you invoke a method and are handed back a reference to an object representing a string. You use this string in your user interface to identify a particular piece of data. Now another subsystem in your application gets its own reference to that same string and decides to mutate it. Suddenly your label has changed out from under you. Things can become even more dire if, for instance, you get a reference to an array that you use to populate a table view. The user selects a row corresponding to an object in the array that has been removed by some code elsewhere in the program, and problems ensue. Immutability is a guarantee that an object won’t unexpectedly change in value while you’re using it.
Objects that are good candidates for immutability are ones that encapsulate collections of discrete values or contain values that are stored in buffers (which are themselves kinds of collections, either of characters or bytes). But not all such value objects necessarily benefit from having mutable versions. Objects that contain a single simple value, such as instances of NSNumber or NSDate, are not good candidates for mutability. When the represented value changes in these cases, it makes more sense to replace the old instance with a new instance.
A note on performance, from the same reference:
Performance is also a reason for immutable versions of objects representing things such as strings and dictionaries. Mutable objects for basic entities such as strings and dictionaries bring some overhead with them. Because they must dynamically manage a changeable backing store—allocating and deallocating chunks of memory as needed—mutable objects can be less efficient than their immutable counterparts.
In the objective-C runtime, why does method_getNumberOfArguments return two more results than the selector would imply?
For example, why does #selector(initWithPrice:color:) return 4?
TL;DR
Alright. Just to set the record straight, yes, the first two arguments to any objective-c method are self and _cmd, always in that order.
A brief history of Objective-C
However, the more interesting subject is the why to this scenario. To do that, we must first look into the history of objc. Without further ado, let's get started.
Way back in 1983, Brad Cox, the 'God' of objective-c, wanted to create an object-oriented runtime-based language on top of C, for good performance and flexibility across platforms. As a result, the very first Objective-C 'compilers' were just simple preprocessors of Objective-C source converted to their C-runtime equivalents, and then compiled with the platform specific C compiler tool.
However, C was not designed for objects, and that was the most fundamental thing that Objective-C had to surmount. While C is a robust and flexible language, runtime support is one of it's critical downfalls.
During the very early design phase of Objective-C, it was decided that objects would be a purely heap-based pointer design, so that they could be passed between any function without weird copy semantics and such (this changed a bit with Obj-C++ and ARC, but that's too wide of a scope for this post), and that every method should be self aware (acually, as bbum points out, it was an optimization for using the same stack frame as the original function call), so that you could have, in theory, multiple method names mapped to the same selector, as follows:
// this is a completely valid objc 1.0 method declaration
void *nameOrAge(id self, SEL _cmd) {
if (_cmd == #selector(name)) {
return "Richard";
}
if (_cmd == #selector(age)) {
return (void *) (intptr_t) 16;
}
return NULL;
}
This function, then could be theoretically mapped to two selectors, name and age, and perform conditional code based on which one is invoked. In general Objective-C code, this is not too big of a deal, as it's quite difficult with ARC now to map functions to selectors, due to casting and such, but the language has evolved quite a bit from then.
Hopefully, that helps you to understand the why behind the two 'invisible' arguments to an Objective-C method, with the first one being the object that was invoked, and the second one being the method that was invoked on that object.
The first two arguments are the hidden arguments self and _cmd.
Is it more appropriate to check a class's type by calling isKindOfClass:, or take the "duck typing" approach by just checking whether it supports the method you're looking for via respondsToSelector: ?
Here's the code I'm thinking of, written both ways:
for (id widget in self.widgets)
{
[self tryToRefresh:widget];
// Does this widget have sources? Refresh them, too.
if ([widget isKindOfClass:[WidgetWithSources class]])
{
for (Source* source in [widget sources])
{
[self tryToRefresh:source];
}
}
}
Alternatively:
for (id widget in self.widgets)
{
[self tryToRefresh:widget];
// Does this widget have sources? Refresh them, too.
if ([widget respondsToSelector:(#selector(sources))])
{
for (Source* source in [widget sources])
{
[self tryToRefresh:source];
}
}
}
It depends on the situation!
My rule of thumb would be, is this just for me, or am I passing it along to someone else?
In your example, respondsToSelector: is fine, since all you need to know is whether you can send the object that message, so you can do something with the result. The class isn't really that important.
On the other hand, if you were going to pass that object to some other piece of code, you don't necessarily know what messages it will be intending to send. In those cases, you would probably be casting the object in order to pass it along, which is probably a clue that you should check to see if it really isKindOfClass: before you cast it.
Another thing to consider is ambiguity; respondsToSelector: tells you an object will respond to a message, but it could generate a false positive if the object returns a different type than you expect. For example, an object that declares a method:
- (int)sources;
Would pass the respondsToSelector: test but then generate an exception when you try to use its return value in a for-in loop.
How likely is that to happen? It depends on your code, how large your project is, how many people are writing code against your API, etc.
It's slightly more idiomatic Objective C to use respondsToSelector:. Objective C is highly dynamic, so your design time assumptions about class structure may not necessarily hold water at run time. respondsToSelector: gets round that by giving you a shortcut to the most common reason for querying the type of a class - whether it performs some operation.
In general where there's ambiguity around a couple of equally appealing choices, go for readability. In this case that means thinking about intent. Do you care if it's specifically a WidgetWithSources, or do you really just care that it has a sources selector? If it's the latter, then use respondsToSelector:. If the former, and it may well be in some cases, then use isKindOfClass. Readability, in this case, means that you're not asking the reader to make the connection between type equivalence of WidgetWithSources and the need to call sources. respondsToSelector: makes that connection for the reader, letting them know what you actually intended. It's a small act of kindness towards your fellow programmer.
Edit: #benzado's answer is nicely congruent.
Good answers from #Tim & #benzado, here is a variation on the theme, the previously covered two cases first:
If at some point you have may have a reference to distinct classes and need them differently then this is probably a case for isKindOfClass: For example, an color might be stored in preferences as either an NSData serialization on an NSColor, or as an NSString value with one of the standard names; to obtain the NSColor value in this case isKindOfClass: on the object return is probably appropriate.
If you have a reference to a single class but different versions of it over time have supported different methods then consider respondsToSelector: For example, many framework classes add new methods in later versions of the OS and Apple's standard recommendation is to check for these methods using respondsToSelector: (and not an OS version check).
If you have a reference to distinct classes and you are testing if they adhere to some informal protocol then:
If this is code you control you can switch to a formal protocol and then use conformsToProtocol: as your test. This has the advantage of testing for type and not just name; otherwise
If this is code you do not control then use respondsToSelector:, but we aware that this is only testing that a method with the same name exists, not that it takes the same types of arguments.
Checking either might be a warning that you are about to make a hackish solution. The widget already knows his class and his selectors.
So a third option might be to consider refactoring. Moving this logic to a [widget tryToRefresh] may be cleaner and allow future widgets to implement additional behind the scenes logic.
I have seen some iOS developpers using code like this :
- (void)setupWebView:(UIWebView**)aWebView {
UIWebView *webview = [[UIWebView alloc] init];
.....
if (*aWebView) {
[*aWebView release];
}
*aWebView = webview;
}
Do you know what'is this mean and why we use this ? thanks
- (void)setupWebView:(UIWebView**)aWebView {
That is awful. You should never have a method that returns void, but sets an argument by reference unless:
• there are multiple arguments set
• the method is prefixed with get
That method should simply return the created instance directly. And this just makes it worse -- is flat out wrong:
if (*aWebView) {
[*aWebView release];
}
*aWebView = webview;
it breaks encapsulation; what if the caller passed a reference to an iVar slot. Now you have the callee managing the callers memory which is both horrible practice and quite likely crashy (in the face of concurrency, for example).
it'll crash if aWebView is NULL; crash on the assignment, specifically.
if aWebView refers to an iVar slot, it bypasses any possible property use (a different way of breaking encapsulation).
It is a method to initialize a pointer. The first line allocates the object. The if statement makes sure that the passed in pointer-to-a-pointer is not already allocated, if it is it releases it. then it sets the referenced pointer to the newly allocated object.
The answer by #bbum is probably correct, but leaves out one aspect to the question that I see there. There are many examples in Foundation which use pointer-pointers in the method signature, so you can say it is a common pattern. And those are probably not a beginners mistake.
Most of these examples are similar in that they fall into one category: the API tries to avoid the usages of exceptions, and instead use NSError for failures. But because the return value is used for a BOOL that signals success, an NSError pointer-pointer is used as output parameter. Only in the probably rare error case an NSError object is created, which can contain error code and error descriptions, and localized descriptions and possibly even more information (like an array of multiple errors in the case of bulk operations). So the main success case is efficient, and the error case has some power to communicate what went wrong, without resorting to exceptions. That is the justification behind these signatures as I understand it.
You can find examples of this usage in both NSFileManager and NSManagedObjectContext.
One might be tempted to use pointer-pointers in other cases where you want multiple return values and an array does not make sense (e.g. because the values are not of same type), but as #bbum said, it is likely better to look hard for alternatives.
This isn’t the original code (I stripped things back in trying to simplify for debugging), but it does display the problem. On the face of it, looks simple enough:
- (void) testMethod: (TouchData) toi {
TouchData newToi = toi;
NSString *test = #"test string";
NSLog(#"string: %#", test);
// in ‘real’ code I pass the struct back
// It’s void here for the simplest possible
// case
}
TouchData is a struct, declared thus:
typedef struct {
Entity *owner;
CGPoint startPos;
CGPoint latestPos;
CGPoint startOfStraightSwipePos;
NSTimeInterval startTime;
NSTimeInterval latestTime;
NSTimeInterval startOfStraightSwipeTime;
CGFloat latestSpeed;
NSMutableArray *gestures;
BOOL isOfInterest;
} TouchData;
When I step through testMethod in the debugger (watching toi) on hitting NSLog (which doesn't even involve toi), all toi member values suddenly zero out. This doesn’t happen to the copy (newToi). It doesn’t happen if I pass the struct in by reference. It doesn’t happen if replace the testMethod invocation directly with the method body (ie. if I run these lines in situ rather than calling into a method). It doesn’t happen if I change the toi parameter type to a dummy struct with a couple of int members, created just before the call.
It might worth pointing out that testMethod is only called from within its own
class, and that the caller has just extracted the struct from an NSMutableDictionary (via unboxing an NSValue). But given that (a) the struct is
passed into the method here by value, and (b) that on entry its members as shown
by the debugger are all as expected, I don’t see that this can be causing a problem. There is also the thorny issue of the two object pointers in the struct, but in other contexts they’re working out OK, and they check out in the debugger on entry to the method, so I don’t think I’ve missed essential retains.
I presume I’m running into some kind of heap or stack corruption, but I’ve no idea how or why. I’m new to Objective-C, and have previously worked in
garbage collected environments, so my memory management experience is limited. It’s entirely possible that I’ve missed something painfully obvious.
I expect someone will tell me to make TouchData an object type instead, and indeed I may well go that way. I also have a couple of tested workarounds, ie. to either work on a copy, or pass the struct in by ref. But I’d really like to know what’s going on here.
If toi is not used after the line TouchData newToi=toi, the compiler can do whatever it wants to do in the stack memory where toi originally was placed after that line. For example, it might reuse the stack memory when calling another function, in this case NSLog.
So, watching toi by a debugger might show something strange. The compiler does often do these things, in particular if the optimization is turned on. Even with no optimization there's no guarantee that the stack location of toi is left intact after it's last used.
By the way, you said having object pointers inside toi didn't cause problems, but it's a tricky situation and I recommend strongly against that practice. Follow the standard retain/release rules; otherwise, another programmer who takes a look at your code (who might be yourself two years from now) would be totally confused. Also, the static analyzer (which can be accessed by doing Build & Analyze in XCode) might be confused and might give false positives. So, don't do that.