Matthew wrote:

> 
> Cancelled it. I'm not going to document here why Apple have lost my business, but suffice it to say, one can understand their consistent lack of market share. Tossers! 
> 
> 

Oh no! why?!  Too many delays?

Apple losing /your/ business is not a good thing.

Darn it.

- John

"John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cuc6at$1g83$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>
>>
>> Cancelled it. I'm not going to document here why Apple have lost my business, but suffice it to say, one can understand their consistent lack of market share. Tossers!
>
> Oh no! why?!  Too many delays?

Yeah, plus an unbelievably slack attitude. World leaders in customer service ... not.

> Apple losing /your/ business is not a good thing.

Why? What's so special about me? Do you wonder whether I may be inclined to document their shortcomings ... ;)

Matthew wrote:
> "John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cuc6at$1g83$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Matthew wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cancelled it. I'm not going to document here why Apple have lost my business, but suffice it to say, one can understand their consistent lack of market share. Tossers!
>>
>>Oh no! why?!  Too many delays?
> 
> 
> Yeah, plus an unbelievably slack attitude. World leaders in customer service ... not.


Oh Bother!


> 
>>Apple losing /your/ business is not a good thing.
> 
> 
> Why? What's so special about me? Do you wonder whether I may be inclined to document their shortcomings ... ;) 
> 
> 


Um... something like that! :-(

"John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cuc7r9$1i7t$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>> "John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cuc6at$1g83$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>>Matthew wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cancelled it. I'm not going to document here why Apple have lost my business, but suffice it to say, one can understand their consistent lack of market share. Tossers!
>>>
>>>Oh no! why?!  Too many delays?
>>
>>
>> Yeah, plus an unbelievably slack attitude. World leaders in customer service ... not.
>
>
> Oh Bother!
>
>
>>
>>>Apple losing /your/ business is not a good thing.
>>
>>
>> Why? What's so special about me? Do you wonder whether I may be inclined to document their shortcomings ... ;)
>
>
> Um... something like that! :-(

Well, I've sent of a snotty letter to sales@apple.com and sales@apple.com.au. The latter bounced, from which I deduce that Apple probably don't have, or don't service, any guessable email addresses - lord knows, there are none on their websites - and so it's gone in the bit bucket.

If I don't hear anything back soon, I reckon there'll be a blog entry coming in a couple of weeks ...

Matthew wrote:

> Well, I've sent of a snotty letter to sales@apple.com and sales@apple.com.au. The latter bounced, from which I deduce that Apple probably don't have, or don't service, any guessable email addresses - lord knows, there are none on their websites - and so it's gone in the bit bucket.
> 
> If I don't hear anything back soon, I reckon there'll be a blog entry coming in a couple of weeks ... 
> 
> 

Ok, Matthew.  Quit holding back.  Where's your blog site?

"John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cucak4$1kcp$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>
>> Well, I've sent of a snotty letter to sales@apple.com and sales@apple.com.au. The latter bounced, from which I deduce that Apple probably don't have, or don't service, any guessable email addresses - lord knows, there are none on their websites - and so it's gone in the bit bucket.
>>
>> If I don't hear anything back soon, I reckon there'll be a blog entry coming in a couple of weeks ...
>
> Ok, Matthew.  Quit holding back.  Where's your blog site?

It's on Artima, where I can rub shoulders with people who really know what they're talking about. But I haven't posted any yet. I've been, er, busy.

I will be kicking it off next week, for sure, now I've got my back up!

John Reimer wrote:
>>> Matthew wrote:
>>>> Cancelled it. I'm not going to document here why Apple have lost my business, but suffice it to say, one can understand their consistent lack of market share. Tossers!
>>>
>>> Oh no! why?!  Too many delays?
>>
>> Yeah, plus an unbelievably slack attitude. World leaders in customer service ... not.
> 
> Oh Bother!

Being new to the Mac, it's easy how you could misunderstand this.
Apple is famous for their design, and infamous for their service.

And over the years, they've also produced a fair share of "lemons"...
Some of us like them anyway, and just make a big glass of lemonade.

If you don't like that, you can always buy your Mac els... nevermind.
:-P
--anders

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:31:48 +0100, Anders F Björklund wrote:

> John Reimer wrote:
>>>> Matthew wrote:
>>>>> Cancelled it. I'm not going to document here why Apple have lost my business, but suffice it to say, one can understand their consistent lack of market share. Tossers!
>>>>
>>>> Oh no! why?!  Too many delays?
>>>
>>> Yeah, plus an unbelievably slack attitude. World leaders in customer service ... not.
>> 
>> Oh Bother!
> 
> Being new to the Mac, it's easy how you could misunderstand this. Apple is famous for their design, and infamous for their service.

Actually, I'm not really that new to the mac.  I grew up with one. My parents got the first Mac 128 as soon as it came out. I spent hours on it with word processing, music programs, games (my favourite was Fokker Triplane Simulator: hours of fun). I think I even did a little programming in BASIC on it (not much; I didn't start programming until a few years later on the C64). We used it for years. I've read tons of MacWorld Mags while growing up. I learned to type on the Mac with Typing Tutor 3 when I was 9 or 10. My folks upgraded to a new PowerPC mac years later.  That machine was also plagued with problems.  Apple eventually replaced the motherboard because of known problems with the model (I don't think the cost was completely covered by Apple, though). I've followed Apple history closely throughout the time, watching their successes and many failures. It was the era I grew up in. Despite all this, for some inexplicable reason, I've maintained a certain fondness for the machine.  It doesn't make sense, really. :-)

That said, I've never personally taken the plunge to get my own personal Mac (I've used other computers for years).  Now with Mac OS X and cheaper macs available, I'm almost ready to take the plunge DESPITE Apples tenuous grasp on market share /and/ reputation for abysmal customer service.

The disappointment I share here is just an expression of sadness
that Apple's poor customer service might destroy their chances at success.
They have to impress people like Matthew, if they know what's good for
them. ;-)

I think Apple needs to succeed, at the very least to give Microsoft the competition it so badly needs.

> And over the years, they've also produced a fair share
of "lemons"...
> Some of us like them anyway, and just make a big glass of lemonade.

Oh yes, they sure have made their share of lemons.  In fact, I must correct myself.  I /did/ buy myself a Mac once... an iMac (or was it an eMac; it was G3 machine, one of the first models of the new sehll design). I loved it! ... that is until it began to repeatedly crash, and the CD drive refused to work within a few days of purchasing it.  I was mortified. After years of wanting the machine, I finally got one and look what happened.  I sent it back and never got a replacement... That was several years ago, and I haven't tried again yet. I'm hoping my next attempt won't meet with such failure.


> If you don't like that, you can always buy your Mac els... nevermind.
> :-P
> --anders

There aren't many options, really.  It's too bad.  It's too bad Apple isn't a little more open (as in clones; I realize they tried that once before), but then they are probably afraid of losing market share within their own ranks... *sigh*.

Later,

John R.

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cubfs7$t5n$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >I think you and I have very similar opinions on this matter.
>>
>> I think most all of us here agree on what the best outcome is, what we seem to disagree over is what the compiler can best do to achieve it.
>
> Absolutely. That's the entire problem. Walter thinks that if the compiler tells the user there's a problem, the most likely outcome is a shut-up because programmers are unprofessional. This hamstrings all diligent engineers. Pessimism vs Optimism/Responsibility. As has been observed, there's no resolution of this difference, so we need to find a compromise.

I don't see the problem as that.

<preach>
I don't think it is fair to call one side pessimistic.  That's pretty
rhetorical.  And if this is a discussion between pessimists and optimists,
then I'm not interested because both camps are typically full of
non-thinkers.  I think the appropriate position would be realist here.
Sorry.
</preach>

<ot>
Let me weigh in that most programmers *are* unprofessional.  (-:  You don't
have to dig through too many books on software engineering to find that out.
There is a factor of 30 between the productivity of the bad and good coders,
for example.  And most people in any "sweatshop" environment, of which there
are plenty in programming, do the minimum work they can.  But I don't think
that matters.
</ot>

I see the problem as a matter of elegance and consistency.  And I think it is more elegant to provide the assert as a run-time check.  Doesn't D also have array bounds checks?  Would you also think that the user should be forced to make these explicitly?  What if the code

  // I am not a D programmer yet, so bear with me if this is C/C++
  // A has atleast 10 elements and we only care about the first 10
  for ( int i = 0; i < 10; i++ )
    test( A[ i ] );

caused a compile-time warning because it can't tell for sure that your assumption is correct.  The only way to "shut-up" the compiler is to have an assert in-line:

  for ( int i = 0; i < 10; i++ )
  {
    assert( i < A.size );
    A[ i ] = i'
  }

So I think the compiler should supply one automatically for the return(0) case just like it does for other situations where the coder is checked on but given the flexibility to write the code as he sees fit.

And this is all assuming you can tell the assert is related to the problem. How smart will the compiler have to be to force an assert in the return(0) case?

  int foo(CollectionClass c, int y)
  {
    int t;

    foreach (Value v; c)
    {
      if (v.x == y)
        return v.z;
    }

    assert( t == 0 );
  }

How does the compiler know that the assert is unrelated to the loop?

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:31:46 -0500, Charlie Patterson wrote:

[snip]

> 
> I don't see the problem as that.

[snip]

> I see the problem as a matter of elegance and consistency.  And I think it is more elegant to provide the assert as a run-time check.

I have no problem with this as well. The issue for me has boiled down to whether or not the compiler tells me that's what its done.

I want to be told whenever the compiler does this sort of thing on my behalf. And I'm happy to have to ask for this too, for example via the -v compiler switch.

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia