I've been using my Pro 1 as a laptop for some time. You're correct that there's some compromises here and not everyone will like using this device as a "laptop" (though the Pro 3 fixes several of those compromises), but don't oversell that either. Makes you as guilty as Ian2 was with "why would anyone buy an Air now?".
Both are great devices and people will choose the one they think is best for them. Maybe with legitimate reasoning, maybe just because of brand loyalty or other such reasons.
Node.js works fine on Azure, but you know that. ;)
What red herring? The only red herring I saw was the claim that giving your cell number in these circumstances will lead you to getting text advertisements (something that I believe is illegal in the US, at least).
Again, if you feel strongly about this, don't give your number out. But I really don't get coming on here to complain about it.
@blowdart: Your avatar seems super appropriate to this thread. "The horror!" indeed.
I get that a minority of people take issue with things like this, but really, if you don't want to give out your phone number, don't. Getting all upset about it and throwing an online fit is really going too far.
He's so sure he's started patenting third party add-ons. In this case a "anti" add-on.
When Bill Gates starts feeling the FOG or fear of Google, I'd say MS in massive trouble in the forward compatibility department.
The question I am left asking is why?
Why didn't they just partner with eyewear makers, and other wearable brands and do it themselves. Why do they have to lag behind on tablets, smart phones and every other manner of technology only to have to catch up later.
It's like PC Junior over and over again, except they never repeated the initial success.
The worst part of it is they have every resource in the world not to take that strategy.
I know you're trolling but.
1. Microsoft was first with tablets.
2. Microsoft was first with smart phones.
3. Microsoft was first with wearables.
4. Microsoft is rumored to have been working on some sort of "glass" like device long before Google was.
5. The article you link is full of hyperbole and connects dots that may not be connected. It's a stupid fluff piece.
Numerous times, but not really to my liking. Here's one blog post about it. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2009/05/21/in-foof-we-trust-a-dialogue.aspx?PageIndex=2
@boxtype: Like I said, old code. On the blog there's a ReflectOn<T> that I believe will allow you to do the same thing via ReflectOn<Test>.GetProperty(x => x.Name).Name.
@GreyLensman's code does the same basic thing as the code on the blog, with different syntax. It all uses Expression to do "static reflection". In the end, you use no hard coded strings. There is a runtime cost, and a significant one. Not a big deal if you can cache the string for reuse, but simply using it in place of a hard coded string will often lead you to very poor performance and isn't a good idea.
Roslyn is an interesting tool. However, unless you're willing to write non-standard code it's not a direct answer for what you want to do. It's unfortunate, but the language doesn't have any compile time Symbol concept, like Ruby has (http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.9.3/Symbol.html). People have been asking for this for some time, but the language designers are reluctant.