Probably has something to do with the fact that "measurable intelligence" doesn't have any scientific basis.
That's politically correct baloney. Tests can be devised to gauge many types or aspects of intelligence. You can measure an individuals aptitude and/or ability, and then use it to predict in a very general way how that individual will perform on various tasks that benefit from such intelligence.
The only substantial way of improving on string concatenation in Objective-C would be to introduce custom operators, and that brings its own set of issues. The other alternatives sacrifice consistency.
I think it's telling that the ultimate way Apple found to improve on Objective-C is to put it on a retirement path by introducing a replacement language. That's mostly all I'm saying here.
And personally I have no objection to methods with long names - it helps me understand what has been written when I return to a program after months (or a year) away. The long names actually make the code more readable and maintainable.
No, in many cases the extra length is just ridiculous boilerplate. And even in cases where the extra length clarifies what's going on, you can do the same thing in other languages, i.e. every language supports use of meaningful names.
Can you seriously argue that concatenating a string in Objective C is elegant?
Be careful! You're repeating yesterday's Dogma of the Faithful. Apple fanboys now have corporate blessing to move to Swift, and you may find yourself left behind.
The encryption keys used by a BES server are generated by that BES server, and not by BB. As such, there is no key that BB can give to any govt which will decrypt any data sent between a BES and a connected BB phone.
You can substitute the BES server for BB in my remark (see, still trusting a third party), or you can recognize that BB still has control over software and software updates, and thus by definition is able to subvert the system. The most you can say is "Sure, they _can_, but I trust that they never _would_." And the infosec guys will shake their heads sadly at you.
This is a blatant lie.
No, in fact it's a fundamental principle of infosec. Unless you keep keys close to your chest and perform tightly controlled, end to end encryption, there are opportunities for subpoenas by TLAs or for top tier hackers to compromise your keys. Trusting a middle man is a fundamental compromise in the provability of your security.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.