> BTW, a final comment. I sent several posters with John Couch (VP Software at the time), when he went to Europe in 1980 to help launch the Apple ///.
My dad used to work at Apple in The Netherlands in the 80s and one day he brought home this poster. I still have it and it is hanging on the wall in my home office 45 years later.
There is also another link between Apple and the artist:
The Apple bite logo was designed by Rob Janoff at Regis McKenna's firm. McKenna says the out-of-order rainbow was inspired by the work of Bay Area commercial illustrator Tom Kamifuji.
I hadn't heard this connection to Tom Kamifuji before, but knew of it being Regis McKenna's work. Here's an example of that exact rainbow I found after a quick search: https://www.flickr.com/photos/30559980@N07/37428150582
>He got two of them autographed by Nicholas Wirth himself
The first comment on that article is pure historical gold - it would be great to get Niklaus Wirth's signature added to this too, if Taylor Pohlman could be convinced to supply a scan?
> Since Jobs did not understand Raskin’s color scheme, he had an artist alter the work, unfortunately, for the worst. Left side, rigid coloring. Right side, chaos.
Interesting to see another datapoint on how an awful asshole of a boss Jobs was.
Without reading the comments on the article, there are multiple possible reasons for removing Raskin’s name. The article comments make clear that Raskin didn’t want his name removed. The other possibility was that he did want that, for example because the artist made it less functional. And then he might have asked Jobs to remove his name, and Jobs complied.
A person has the right to take their name off a work if that person doesn’t like how the collaboration affects the work.
The article makes it clear that Raskin wanted to be credited.
She is no longer on twitter, she's @nanoraptor on masto -- sorry can't give you the whole handle as masto seems to make it rather difficult to list one's own list of following!
Essentially all by hand. I'd tried to do it a few times before with different quality scans, and while I could see the original intent on all of them, auto-tracing never held up across the whole poster.
I ended up taking a few days zoning out and re-drawing it as a white/black raster image over a highly scaled up scan, then auto-traced that in Illustrator and coloured it there. Text went in as some variant of Century Gothic with a few changes to match the original.
No one seems to have tried to leverage deep learning yet; either because they haven't thought of doing so, or it just wouldn't be worthwhile. image to SVG's are an inherently deterministic task, with not much room for the noisy error of most deep learning models like stable diffusion and such. I think algorithmic approaches are just better in this case - deep learning isn't always superior.
5 years ago... someone tried abusing a text generating RNN to produce broken SVG, and then tidy it up. Genuinely curious as to how this might work with today's transformers.
I had to use four floppy drives on a project I did - the UCSD editor had to be set up to swap parts of itself to those extra floppy disks, or there was not enough room for the code. I don't remember all the details anymore, but it was tight.
As for the poster - I remember that I saw it, but I just can't recall where, or where it came from (but I probably saw it somewhere near where I worked. So long ago..)
Though, of course, that's far from the only thing you need to recognise a syntactically valid C++ program.
Deciding on syntax is Turing complete in C++. (Even in Pascal, you still need to check that you only used identifiers you declared before. That's not expressed in this diagram. But the extra rules required to get to the full language's syntax are fairly tame compared to C++.)
Syntax is Turing complete, and hence undecidable, in C++, because what's valid syntax depends on types in some instances, and the type system is Turing complete.
IIRC because of some newer constexpr features you need a C++ VM with UB detection to parse C++, pretty wild. One of the reasons you have the choice between clang based source analysis tooling and incorrect tooling.
It's not so much that clang is correct: there's no way to implement correct C++ according to the standard. But if you are using clang as your compiler, at least your tooling will agree with your compiler.
https://vintagecomputer.ca/the-history-of-apples-pascal-synt...