Though technically it's not that "array of numbers" is a class, but that array of T implements the interface IEnumerable<T>, and Sum() is extension method defined for IEnumerable<int>
It looks like there's two directions for a language's type system to go:
1) strict typing, but with lots of constructs (e.g. inheritance, interfaces, generics, extension methods) to work around that strictness so that you can do what you want, if you understand the rules and syntax to get it to compile.
2) loose, "duck typing" so you just do what you want, but without compiler checking that it's possible, and with the posibility that it fails at runtime if the right method isn't found.
In dynamic languages where arrays can be homogenous, the array can still have a sum method, it just assumes decent coercion rules and overloaded + (or it barfs...).
> Kudos to his manager for actually looking at the code and recognizing the problem.
Huh?
> My manager looked at the code and asked "Who's going to maintain this? How will they understand it?"
That's not the first time I've encountered these questions. I heard it when I used function pointers in C. I heard it when I used templates in C++.
So essentially the manager bans the use of basic language features because they have hired incompetent programmers who shouldn't be working in the languages before understanding them. How exactly did the manager "recognize the problem"? The problem isn't that people use languages like they are supposed to be used, it's that they have made bad hires, which is not the competent programmers fault.
My current phone is slowly breaking and I've been searching for something along those lines. Samsung E2370 seems to fit the bill, though even it has some extraneous features:
The article says pretty much what I've been thinking: too many choices, consumers have no idea which Nokia phone is any good.
However, I'm not so sure that this thinking is any good in the long run for Nokia, everybody says that company X should emulate Apple, it is just the easy thing to suggest because Apple is currently winning.
> everybody says that company X should emulate Apple, it is just the easy thing to suggest because Apple is currently winning.
That's like saying "it's the easy thing to suggest that Johnny will only win the foot race by emulating Jimmy, who is running instead of taking a bath then playing video games." As though there's more nuance to it than that.
Apple is doing what is necessary to win. If someone says a company should emulate Apple, it's a shorthand for saying that Apple has consistently won in the markets they've entered for the last decade and their approach is excellent for selling consumer electronics.
Apple wins through focus. Is there any argument against having focus? What is the benefit of avoiding focus and smearing your efforts around a dozen different projects?
Apple wins through quality. What would be the argument for making shit instead of quality?
Apple wins through integration. What would be the argument for making devices that weren't well integrated, from software/hardware perspective or a user experience/ecosystem perspective?
Want to know who is emulating Apple, proving the value of its example? Look at Amazon and the Kindle. Supreme focus: Maximum of two hardware variations so far. Excellent quality: great hardware, decent software. Incredible integration, with Whispernet allowing you to buy any Amazon content anywhere in the world, tied to your existing Amazon account, which is pre-loaded onto your Kindle when you open it.
But if you look at the whole of Amazon, not just Kindle, the company is all over the place. It sells an e-book reader! It sells books! It sells other consumer products! It provides a marketplace where other people can sell products, even books! It sells cloud-computing services!
If Amazon had a few bad quarters, I could imagine business pundits looking over this list, clicking their tongues, and saying that Amazon’s “lack of focus” was its downfall.
There's no need for conspiracy theories, but this is something that should not be overlooked either. Elop's decisions influence two very large companies and their shareholders, and one small to medium sized country and its taxpayers. One thing is to make sure that his actions are legal (which they appear to be, unsurprisingly), and other is to understand the context and biases he is operating with.
