493 karma · joined May 31, 2014
> let a = Box::new(2);
I believe it's an unstable feature currently to use the "box" keyword to heap-allocate a value, which can also be used in pattern matching. I saw somewhere that "box" will be made into an overloadable operator, such that you can easily create reference-counted and atomically reference-counted types.
This project is entirely satirical. Read through to the bottom of the README.
The language itself isn't that bad. There are a lot of quirks given how old it is (variable names being limited in size, file name being only 8 characters long, file-based scope, etc), but once you learn them it's really not that bad.
The best thing about the language is how it enforces a particular programming style. You have to define ALL variable and external data sources before you're able to use them. And when you get to the meat-and-potatoes of the program, a certain style is primarily used: open external resources (files, DB2 tables), check for IO errors, process the data, close the resources. Makes it easy to grok what's going on within a program (even if that program is older than you are).
The biggest challenge that I see for new COBOL programmers is learning all of the tools you'll use for your job. On the IBM zSeries Mainframe that we use, there are a TON of tools that we use to monitor our batch/CICS online programs. But that, like everything else, will take practice.
While I realize those key signing ceremonies are probably just a bunch of people sitting around playing games on their phones, waiting around for their turn to give their keys to someone who's typing in all of the appropriate commands, I want to believe they're in some sort of dungeon, wearing black, hooded robes and chanting Gregorian chants while doing it.
I dunno, maybe I'm just weird.
Shots fired!
But really, excellent job on the release! Microsoft has been producing a lot lately, and that's awesome to see!
This seems like a great product for the post-college individual, living away on their own for the first time (i.e. me). Heck, I know already that I'm low on detergent, yet I keep forgetting to go to the store to pick up more. Obviously that's my fault, but being able to LITERALLY press a button and have what I need appear at my doorstep is pretty sweet.
Though, I'm still not totally convinced that this isn't an April Fool's joke that's a day early...
However, even if I did have an iPhone, I'd still prefer the Pebble Time, just for the battery life alone. I currently have a Moto 360, and it lasts about 2 days on a single charge (depending on how often I'm checking it/how often my girlfriend texts me). While that's over twice as long as the Apple Watch, it still doesn't hold a candle to the longevity of the Pebble.