4 ms·

As someone who writes some pretty hardcore UIs in Cocoa, this reactive style stuff seems applicable to a pretty narrow class of application. The more you fight

by jawngee 11y ago

As someone who writes some pretty hardcore UIs in Cocoa, this reactive style stuff seems applicable to a pretty narrow class of application. The more you fight Cocoa, which I believe this stuff does, the bigger the mess you'll create for yourself once you view hierarchy becomes large and filled with custom views that don't really fit what 99% of these tutorials cover. Furthermore, trying emulate "dom" diffing by replacing views, instead of updating them, as they seem to be illustrating towards the end of the article (could be reading this wrong though) is pretty inefficient way of doing things in Cocoa.

rheeseyb 11y ago
Hmmm, sorry if it's not clear but we aren't replacing views after the diffing, we are updating them (that's what we use RxSwift for). The diffing is used to determine which views to add, which to remove, and which to update.
jawngee 11y ago
This is what I mean by hardcore UI: http://imgur.com/a/XBfNY http://imgur.com/a/XBfNY Sorry for the marketing shots.
- rheeseyb 11y ago
  We're actually aiming to build UIs that would match this level of complexity (if not even more complex), so it will be interesting to see how this pans out. I'm not massively concerned about it being an issue tbh (though thanks for flagging it) - the real issue that I'm concerned might swallow a lot of our time will be how we implement animations using this architecture (though we're currently looking to React JS for inspiration there).
  - bsaul 11y ago
    That's what i was about to say : i'd be curious to see how this approach works when bringing animation into the mix, as well as complex uikit components ( such as tableview and collection views) which have their own optimized refresh cycles.
cballard 11y ago
This might be somewhat true for this particular article, but please do not confuse that with functional-reactive-programming-like systems in general. I don't know RxSwift so will write in terms of ReactiveCocoa. 1. Apps are more than views. 2. ReactiveCocoa and RxSwift are just asynchronous data over time, represented as Just Another Data Structure (cough monad). Even if you just use them instead of callback blocks, it's an improvement because they can be composed, stored in data structures, and used in ways that methods taking a callback function and returning Void cannot. Cancellation is then implicit on deallocation, instead of needing to reference a "cancellation token" or other icky state like that. 3. Complex UIs are exactly where you want this type of system, because it provides type safety and compiler verification, instead of hoping that your target/selectors and KVO work and never break when you edit something and the compiler doesn't complain. I think that a popular JavaScript UI library being named "React" has damaged the perception of FRP-like systems. Generic FRP-like systems are not related to UI, other than that they can be used for it. People are confusing "DOM diffing" for having anything to do with signals/streams. In UIs, FRP-like systems allow you to take some evil imperative state (a slider was moved!), lift it into a happy pure-functional world, process the inputs, and drop out of evil imperative state at the end ("update the color"). For example, an RGB slider (using a bit of shorthand in places): combineLatest(redSlider.value, greenSlider.value, blueSlider.value) .throttle(0.5, onScheduler: UIScheduler()) .map({ r, g, b in UIColor(r, g, b) }) .startWithNext({ color in colorView.color = color }) In four lines, we accept input from three different controls, wait for the changes to "settle" (let's say updating colorView.color is expensive for some reason), and update the view! It's very easy. Let's say we want to make a change, and only update colorView when the user taps a button: combineLatest(redSlider.value, greenSlider.value, blueSlider.value) .sampleOn(button.tapped) .map({ r, g, b in UIColor(r, g, b) }) .startWithNext({ color in colorView.color = color }) Only one change necessary. In plain-old-Cocoa, this would require another instance method to be defined.
- drewcrawford 11y ago
  So, this is the first time I actually understand what the FRP people are talking about. So, thanks for that. It has been greek to me for some time. However, now that I do understand it, I agree with parent. I don't want to use this for complex UIs. Point by point: > Cancellation is then implicit on deallocation In practice, you're going to have retain cycles, no? I mean I don't know where these four lines "live", but if we write them in a closure and ship them off to a sync/diff/runloop engine, unless we are quite careful, that sync engine is going to hold a great many strong references. Unless you intend this to be an IBAction definition, in which case... > because it provides type safety and compiler verification, instead of hoping that your target/selectors and KVO work and never break when you edit something and the compiler doesn't complain. As long as the underlying Cocoa uses target-action, true compiler verification is impossible. Compiler verification checks something (these four lines) but it doesn't check that these lines actually run when the slider is moved in any way. > FRP-like systems allow you to take some evil imperative state (a slider was moved!), lift it into a happy pure-functional world, It's not immediately clear to me how e.g. throttle is implemented, but it must accumulate state inside it somehow in order to replay the event after the timer. > Complex UIs are exactly where you want this type of system, because it provides type safety and compiler verification, instead of hoping that your target/selectors and KVO work and never break when you edit something and the compiler doesn't complain. Compiler verification is good; tests are better. And I do not understand how you would even begin to write unit tests for this. Now we get to: 1. Stopping in the debugger and trying to reason about these signal chains is complicated, because what we have here is a datastructure in memory, not lines of code I can step through 2. This example does not account for threading, and in any nontrivial example you want to move between background and foreground a few times. It also does not deal with "splitting/merging" (multiple observers, etc.) and I suspect the intersection of those two features is a sharp edge. 3. Finally, let's compare against a slightly more traditional syntax: @IBAction func valueChanged() { dispatch_throttle(0.5, onQueue: dispatch_get_main_queue()) { colorView.color = colorToValue(red: sliderA.value, green: sliderB.value, blue: sliderC.value) } } This syntax is also four lines of code, including the context of where the lines live. This example resolves all the problems I listed with the FRP example. In addition, it also collates which slider goes with which color component in a single line, rather than breaking that relationship apart across a (potentially long) signal path. To evolve from your first example to your second example we would just change slider.addTarget(self, action: "valueChanged", forControlEvents: .ValueChanged) to button.addTarget(self, action: "valueChanged", forControlEvents: .TouchUpInside) While I readily concede this aspect is not quite as elegant as your example, to me having a slightly more complicated 1-line diff is a very low price to pay for all the other benefits I listed.
robbbbbb 11y ago
Actually your last point was the aspect of this article I liked the most. Most examples I come across of applying non-imperative patterns to fundamentally stateful applications (UI, games) cheat at the last hurdle. It's usually "we take a model, apply a transformation, creating a new model, and display it - no side effects, we're heroes, now everyone agree to never use imperative languages ever again!" but then forget that they've now created a copy of their entire system, which may cause havoc with anything from memory budgets to publish-subscribe setups or asynchronous update/display loops. At least by not sidestepping this thorny part of the problem the authors are showing a sensible solution which doesn't try to pretend a UI composed from NSViews is a stateless system. Instead they show a reasonable way to maintain its state through diffing it against an idealised model, localising the changes (additions, deletions, updates) to the minimum necessary.
- encloser 11y ago
  > ...but then forget that they've now created a copy of their entire system With persistent data structures you don't have a whole copy of the entire system. The two views of your system share memory where information didn't change. Sort of like how Git works.
  - robbbbbb 11y ago
    You're absolutely right, and persistent datastructures are exactly the right solution for this problem domain. But that doesn't get round the fact that they are a hell of a lot harder to implement and to understand in comparison to what you had before in an imperative, mutable world (as a UI programmer I now deal with diffing and versioning whereas before I simply mutated variables).

by jawngee 11y ago

rheeseyb 11y ago

Hmmm, sorry if it's not clear but we aren't replacing views after the diffing, we are updating them (that's what we use RxSwift for). The diffing is used to determine which views to add, which to remove, and which to update.

jawngee 11y ago

This is what I mean by hardcore UI: http://imgur.com/a/XBfNY http://imgur.com/a/XBfNY Sorry for the marketing shots.

rheeseyb 11y ago
We're actually aiming to build UIs that would match this level of complexity (if not even more complex), so it will be interesting to see how this pans out. I'm not massively concerned about it being an issue tbh (though thanks for flagging it) - the real issue that I'm concerned might swallow a lot of our time will be how we implement animations using this architecture (though we're currently looking to React JS for inspiration there).
- bsaul 11y ago
  That's what i was about to say : i'd be curious to see how this approach works when bringing animation into the mix, as well as complex uikit components ( such as tableview and collection views) which have their own optimized refresh cycles.

cballard 11y ago

This might be somewhat true for this particular article, but please do not confuse that with functional-reactive-programming-like systems in general. I don't know RxSwift so will write in terms of ReactiveCocoa. 1. Apps are more than views. 2. ReactiveCocoa and RxSwift are just asynchronous data over time, represented as Just Another Data Structure (cough monad). Even if you just use them instead of callback blocks, it's an improvement because they can be composed, stored in data structures, and used in ways that methods taking a callback function and returning Void cannot. Cancellation is then implicit on deallocation, instead of needing to reference a "cancellation token" or other icky state like that. 3. Complex UIs are exactly where you want this type of system, because it provides type safety and compiler verification, instead of hoping that your target/selectors and KVO work and never break when you edit something and the compiler doesn't complain. I think that a popular JavaScript UI library being named "React" has damaged the perception of FRP-like systems. Generic FRP-like systems are not related to UI, other than that they can be used for it. People are confusing "DOM diffing" for having anything to do with signals/streams. In UIs, FRP-like systems allow you to take some evil imperative state (a slider was moved!), lift it into a happy pure-functional world, process the inputs, and drop out of evil imperative state at the end ("update the color"). For example, an RGB slider (using a bit of shorthand in places): combineLatest(redSlider.value, greenSlider.value, blueSlider.value) .throttle(0.5, onScheduler: UIScheduler()) .map({ r, g, b in UIColor(r, g, b) }) .startWithNext({ color in colorView.color = color }) In four lines, we accept input from three different controls, wait for the changes to "settle" (let's say updating colorView.color is expensive for some reason), and update the view! It's very easy. Let's say we want to make a change, and only update colorView when the user taps a button: combineLatest(redSlider.value, greenSlider.value, blueSlider.value) .sampleOn(button.tapped) .map({ r, g, b in UIColor(r, g, b) }) .startWithNext({ color in colorView.color = color }) Only one change necessary. In plain-old-Cocoa, this would require another instance method to be defined.

drewcrawford 11y ago
So, this is the first time I actually understand what the FRP people are talking about. So, thanks for that. It has been greek to me for some time. However, now that I do understand it, I agree with parent. I don't want to use this for complex UIs. Point by point: > Cancellation is then implicit on deallocation In practice, you're going to have retain cycles, no? I mean I don't know where these four lines "live", but if we write them in a closure and ship them off to a sync/diff/runloop engine, unless we are quite careful, that sync engine is going to hold a great many strong references. Unless you intend this to be an IBAction definition, in which case... > because it provides type safety and compiler verification, instead of hoping that your target/selectors and KVO work and never break when you edit something and the compiler doesn't complain. As long as the underlying Cocoa uses target-action, true compiler verification is impossible. Compiler verification checks something (these four lines) but it doesn't check that these lines actually run when the slider is moved in any way. > FRP-like systems allow you to take some evil imperative state (a slider was moved!), lift it into a happy pure-functional world, It's not immediately clear to me how e.g. throttle is implemented, but it must accumulate state inside it somehow in order to replay the event after the timer. > Complex UIs are exactly where you want this type of system, because it provides type safety and compiler verification, instead of hoping that your target/selectors and KVO work and never break when you edit something and the compiler doesn't complain. Compiler verification is good; tests are better. And I do not understand how you would even begin to write unit tests for this. Now we get to: 1. Stopping in the debugger and trying to reason about these signal chains is complicated, because what we have here is a datastructure in memory, not lines of code I can step through 2. This example does not account for threading, and in any nontrivial example you want to move between background and foreground a few times. It also does not deal with "splitting/merging" (multiple observers, etc.) and I suspect the intersection of those two features is a sharp edge. 3. Finally, let's compare against a slightly more traditional syntax: @IBAction func valueChanged() { dispatch_throttle(0.5, onQueue: dispatch_get_main_queue()) { colorView.color = colorToValue(red: sliderA.value, green: sliderB.value, blue: sliderC.value) } } This syntax is also four lines of code, including the context of where the lines live. This example resolves all the problems I listed with the FRP example. In addition, it also collates which slider goes with which color component in a single line, rather than breaking that relationship apart across a (potentially long) signal path. To evolve from your first example to your second example we would just change slider.addTarget(self, action: "valueChanged", forControlEvents: .ValueChanged) to button.addTarget(self, action: "valueChanged", forControlEvents: .TouchUpInside) While I readily concede this aspect is not quite as elegant as your example, to me having a slightly more complicated 1-line diff is a very low price to pay for all the other benefits I listed.

robbbbbb 11y ago

Actually your last point was the aspect of this article I liked the most. Most examples I come across of applying non-imperative patterns to fundamentally stateful applications (UI, games) cheat at the last hurdle. It's usually "we take a model, apply a transformation, creating a new model, and display it - no side effects, we're heroes, now everyone agree to never use imperative languages ever again!" but then forget that they've now created a copy of their entire system, which may cause havoc with anything from memory budgets to publish-subscribe setups or asynchronous update/display loops. At least by not sidestepping this thorny part of the problem the authors are showing a sensible solution which doesn't try to pretend a UI composed from NSViews is a stateless system. Instead they show a reasonable way to maintain its state through diffing it against an idealised model, localising the changes (additions, deletions, updates) to the minimum necessary.

encloser 11y ago
> ...but then forget that they've now created a copy of their entire system With persistent data structures you don't have a whole copy of the entire system. The two views of your system share memory where information didn't change. Sort of like how Git works.
- robbbbbb 11y ago
  You're absolutely right, and persistent datastructures are exactly the right solution for this problem domain. But that doesn't get round the fact that they are a hell of a lot harder to implement and to understand in comparison to what you had before in an imperative, mutable world (as a UI programmer I now deal with diffing and versioning whereas before I simply mutated variables).