The feeling I had wracking my brain to solve this only to find the top solution was near exactly what I had come up with :')

oh my good 'o'

wow that's really clever! and so much less code than what I had!

If I'm not mistaken, I think it compares the ascii or unicode number for it. '4' in ascii would be int 52 and '5' would be int 53, '6' is int 54 and so forth so anything below int 53, put a '0' and anything above put a '1'

wowza

I wrote this same code except last line

However, it's worth noting that this implementation iterates through the array three times in the best case (once for sum(), once for max(), and once for min()), which could be a consideration for very large arrays where performance is critical.Maybe your solution was even better in the end ;)

intresting it just compiled all the 4-5 lines of code to a one liner (but, i'm being honest here it can be optimised)...
REGARDLESS, GOOD JOB

Great job, I decided as well.

Nice dude I spent so much time on this problem

Should be same result, but wouldn't it be slightly faster to shortcut the extra operation?

I put
if arr == None or len(arr) <= 1:
instead of
if arr == None or len(arr) < 3:

strings are ordered lexicographically

and if you attempt to compare a string to an int then whichever one of them you ask they'll tell you they don't know which comes first. (operators boil down to method calls on one of the operands. you're asking one of the values if it's smaller than the other)

javascript on the other hand, is a mistake, and will convert mixed values into a single type and then compare for you. all friendly and with a smile on its face. "friendly" here really just means it did something other than what you said, which is a great way to make your code full of difficult to find bugs.

hi natan, could you please explain how the code treats this?