Oddly enough, I thought all of the ones on that page, well, sucked.
They were boring.
oddly, we differ. i think they were better… the old ruby logo in
ruby-lang is better too…
I can’t say that the chosen logo “turns me on”, but I think it can be
cleaned up; maybe with a few more black lines to darken the gem;
possibly wash out the red/orange background gradient.
i suggest we remove all those fill colors and all text. ie we start with
the plain outline, the sliced gem and the box. if we do not like the
outlined result, then it’s really not what we want. but looking at it
now, i guess a plain smoothed outline is not bad (in fact i may be happy
even without those colors :)) can anyone experiment on this, pls?
But I don’t think it’s a bad logo at all, and it’s certainly better
than some of the Web 2.0 style logos that I’ve seen touted as
Alter all, the top image of the language is Ruby jewel. So I
avoided rabbits, fairies, and other creatures.
Hi,
I think the selected submission does not fulfill the purposes of the
contest: to work in low resolution (even black and white), with and
without text, etc.
For those curious about other ideas, you can see what I submitted at:
Will the new logo work as an image for files with .rb extensión inside a
file explorer? As a favicon? Printed in black & white?
I think something like the process used by the Open Logo Project
(http://olp.spreadshirt.com) would have been more interesting.
–
vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407
Nice one. But maybe it would simply return the username of the
account, or an array of randomly selected buttheads from the day’s
headlines…
watch out to lazy evaluate it though…
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 04:02:43AM +0900, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
Chad P. wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:51:42AM +0900, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
(ps. I’m writing a book called “Butfirst Logo”.)
I tend to guess that’s a joke – but if you’re serious, I’d like to know
more.
Sorry to disappoint you… it’s a terrible joke.
Darn. I thought it was a pretty good joke, if you were serious. More
high-class, self-deprecating puns like that in the titles of technical
texts would be a plus, I think.
It Matz really does add Enumerable#butfirst (being discussed now), this
book title could be a reality for ruby…
The butfirst procedure in Logo is pretty damned useful. I wouldn’t be
opposed to seeing an Enumerable#butfirst in Ruby – even with the
unavoidable juvenile humor that will be only mildly amusing the first
time, and will rapidly lose its charm from there.
The butfirst procedure in Logo is pretty damned useful. I wouldn’t be
opposed to seeing an Enumerable#butfirst in Ruby – even with the
unavoidable juvenile humor that will be only mildly amusing the first
time, and will rapidly lose its charm from there.
It would be useful, but the juvenile humor would probably be forever.
Matz, this is not your regular dissensus, which certainly every logo
decision would have caused.
The new logo is simply painfully ungraceful, archaic and amateurish,
thus reflecting everything that Ruby is not.
Unfortunately, the other proposals shown in various comments seem even
worse, except for this one: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158
I think the single-gem logo concept hits the spot and the next
logo, with some minor typographic tweaking, should be based upon it: http://www.ruby-lang.org/images/logo.gif
Those comments made me down. X-<
Matz, this is not your regular dissensus, which certainly every logo
decision would have caused.
The new logo is simply painfully ungraceful, archaic and amateurish,
thus reflecting everything that Ruby is not.
Unfortunately, the other proposals shown in various comments seem even
worse, except for this one: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/1806344630_72ee335896.jpg?v=1193785158
Ugh. That’s the worst. I don’t know why people think that Web 2.0
logos would be a good idea here. Talk about dating yourself quickly
… to 2006.
Darn. I thought it was a pretty good joke, if you were serious. More
unavoidable juvenile humor that will be only mildly amusing the first
time, and will rapidly lose its charm from there.
Is this not one of these self deprecating puns? Not being in the same
intellectual league of course, but (no, this is not juvenile here!!!)
at least I can understand it
R.
I like that logo because it’s versatile. He’s put a “Web 2.0” finish
on it now, but you could just as easily redefine it into something not
Web 2.0. I see it like the Apple logo: rainbows were so 1970’s, but
tossing some shine on it brought it into the new millenium.
I think that logo could handle that sort of transformation quite easily.
but that’s a moot point since the choice has been made. Now, maybe
there should be a contest to take the chosen logo and clean it up to
make it into something that is more acceptable to the Ruby community.
Perhaps, there could be a hundred minor variations of the chosen logo
and the winner of that contest would be a significant improvement.
