Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Go's New Brand

blog.golang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 301 posts

Re: Go's New Brand

#141

Post by rukuu001 »

wiremine wrote: post #123

Caveat: I'm a software developer who's worked in agencies for half of my 20 year career. A few thoughts: 1. Branding is hard: everybody things they can do it. Creative direction and art direction are really, really hard. If you haven't seen the "Make my logo bigger cream" video, go watch it, and then have some grace with the Go team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgcX0y1Nzhs 2. A brand is WAY more than a logo. I ge…

> A brand is WAY more than a logo.

I thought it was super-interesting they used the word 'brand' instead of 'branding'.

As if a brand ("what people say about you when you're not listening") could be conjured from a logo and set of colours.

Re: Go's New Brand

#142

Post by jupp0r »

zzzcpan wrote: post #58
jupp0r wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this gets too many downvotes. Yes, static vs dynamic typing. Yes, imperative vs functional language. On the other hand, CSP is conceptually fairly close to the Actor Model, so there are definitely similarities. I've written go code that looks similar to Erlang (a go routine receiving messages from an `interface{}` channel in a for loop and then dispatching based on the type.

Conceptually they are worlds apart. Supervision trees are even impossible in idiomatic Go.

Supervision trees have nothing to do with Actors or CSP. I can recommend reading the original papers.

Golang not well supporting supervision trees has more to do with the runtime not allowing to kill a goroutine. See http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2930

Re: Go's New Brand

#143

Post by Zyst »

zokier wrote: post #34

This makes me incredibly (to me) sad. The identity is so completely soulless, and the logo is the opposite of timeless, trying to grasp currently oh so hip and pop retro aesthetic. Nevermind that the retro logo and super sleek modern visual identity seems to clash with each other, both are abandoning the playfulness that was so prevalent before, most clearly evident in the various Go gopher illustrations. And its not…

I didn't even know Go had a logo, so long as they aren't touching the Gopher I honestly don't care.

Re: Go's New Brand

#145

Post by staticassertion »

21 wrote: post #86

Reading the comments here makes it clear why most programmers should stay away from design. I've programmed for 20 years now, but that stupid gopher and the way it was everywhere was a serious put off for me on giving Go a look. Nerdy AF. Good riddance. I wonder if there was a huge internal battle between the brand savvy people which realized how terrible the gopher was, and the Go creators. Guys, don't be so stereot…

"People who don't agree that this is good are just dumb nerds, but UGH I'll get downvoted for this opinion"

Re: Go's New Brand

#146

Post by rn2dy2018 »

1. Go already has a brand and logo recognized by everyone. 2. Go is a programming language, not a brand, I as a developer don't really care what the brand look like. So, to the community and the GO team: please don't make this a big deal!

Re: Go's New Brand

#147

Post by niij »

zokier wrote: post #34

This makes me incredibly (to me) sad. The identity is so completely soulless, and the logo is the opposite of timeless, trying to grasp currently oh so hip and pop retro aesthetic. Nevermind that the retro logo and super sleek modern visual identity seems to clash with each other, both are abandoning the playfulness that was so prevalent before, most clearly evident in the various Go gopher illustrations. And its not…

>But for Go, this logo is the one that I acknowledge:

> https://blog.golang.org/gopher/logo.png

Check the link again. They pulled the rug out from under you.

Re: Go's New Brand

#148

Post by FridgeSeal »

juliangoldsmith wrote: post #107
zokier wrote: post #34

This makes me incredibly (to me) sad. The identity is so completely soulless, and the logo is the opposite of timeless, trying to grasp currently oh so hip and pop retro aesthetic. Nevermind that the retro logo and super sleek modern visual identity seems to clash with each other, both are abandoning the playfulness that was so prevalent before, most clearly evident in the various Go gopher illustrations. And its not…

I'd agree here. It's like they tried to make the new branding as generic as they possibly could. I liked the simple, basic site that Go has always used. It seems inevitable that they'll redo the site, to include megabytes of JavaScript for features that nobody wants, like hijacked scrolling. (The site[0] for the design agency they talk about loads about 3 MB. Almost none of it is images. The site loads all that to di…

Jesus christ that site is bad.

It's like they tried to tick every box in the "obnoxious and annoying" category:

* It's inexplicably large

* It's slow af

* Scroll hijacking

* back button hijacking

* There's elements that appear when I scroll, but they disappear so you don't actually appear to be able to look them any more than in passing. (Notably the colourful logos for Google and Priceline).

* Did I mention it's slow? Scrolling is slow. Clicking on things is slow. Animations are slow.

* ~Half the code isn't even minified and a coworker pointed out that some of it doesn't appear to even be used.~ Nevermind, some of it does appear to be minified/resized.

* 3.8+ Megabytes of JS, really? Really really? Why?

Re: Go's New Brand

#149

Post by jfarlow »

zokier wrote: post #104
21 wrote: post #86

Reading the comments here makes it clear why most programmers should stay away from design. I've programmed for 20 years now, but that stupid gopher and the way it was everywhere was a serious put off for me on giving Go a look. Nerdy AF. Good riddance. I wonder if there was a huge internal battle between the brand savvy people which realized how terrible the gopher was, and the Go creators. Guys, don't be so stereot…

You realize that the gopher (and glenda before it) was created by professional illustrator and not programmers?

For those interested in seeing Glenda:

https://blog.golang.org/gopher

Re: Go's New Brand

#150

Post by masonic »

zokier wrote: post #34

This makes me incredibly (to me) sad. The identity is so completely soulless, and the logo is the opposite of timeless, trying to grasp currently oh so hip and pop retro aesthetic. Nevermind that the retro logo and super sleek modern visual identity seems to clash with each other, both are abandoning the playfulness that was so prevalent before, most clearly evident in the various Go gopher illustrations. And its not…

  the logo is the opposite of timeless, trying to grasp currently oh so hip and pop retro aesthetic
I'd have expected to see that logo on the e-bikes scattered across the neighborhood.
Post reply on HN