261–270 of 301 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go's language design is fundamentally about rigidity and consistency -- and I'm not saying that's bad -- but it's pretty far from playful. I'd consider languages like JavaScript, Ruby, and Python to be playful languages by comparison.
If Python's considered playful, what does that make Perl?
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…
It's a programming language not a consumer product. Who cares? The gopher was fun.
Perhaps this won't be a popular sentiment, but since when did programming languages need brand identity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case the cliché brand identity is the jeans and t-shirt combo. Does hip branding not make a language seem juvenile? You talk about serious image, but surely you can't find more serious languages than those devoid of branding, like C and Lisp.
Neither C nor Lisp have any branding at all, do they ? Other than the moustache, and frankly, on that front Perl has got them beat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
I think you might have been confused by the fact that the new logo is basically just a polished-up version of the original one. Were you expecting the gopher at that URL?
Yes, I was expecting the gopher, especially because of the URL's path including the word gopher. Looking at the wayback machine shows you're right, this is the same picture that's been at that URL for years. I just always thought of the gopher as their logo, didn't realize there was another logo they used (I don't use Go so not too familiar with it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a programming language not a consumer product. Who cares? The gopher was fun.
Sometimes you want to show your consumer what technologies you used in the product you're selling. The gopher looks very bad on "made with" slides. In a presentation, I had a slide with tons of logos presenting the technologies we used. In the middle of the javascript, html, css and maybe ruby (don't remember), the gopher looked childish and immature. Sometimes it can be ok (if your customer is a young, cool, laid-ba…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The logo also appears to have lifted several elements from the podcast Jordan, Jesse, Go [1]. The font is almost identical. It has the white text on almost the exact same shade of blue. It has the three lines trailing part of the logo. EDIT: Here [2] are the two logos side by side. The number of similarities would make this one hell of a coincidence. [1] - http://www.maximumfun.org/shows/jordan-jesse-go [2] - https:/…
I don’t think there’s enough evidence that they’re inspired by each other. movement lines aren’t original. they’re a classic visual archetype, commonly used to convey movement in static images. they exist in every comic book ever printed. Sans-serif fonts in all caps consisting of two circular letters “G”and “O” can look similar, depending on who’s looking no car
That is unfortunate phrasing. The Jordan, Jesse, Go logo has been used for roughly a decade and the podcast is older than the Go language. There is only one possible direction that any inspiration could have flowed.
Any one or two of these specific details can be explained away, but at a certain point the number of coincidence start to indicate that they are not in fact coincidences.
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 identity is so completely soulless, and the logo is the opposite of timeless So true. When I look at the new logo, it reminds me of Adidas in the 1980s.
but Adidas had plenty of soul in the 80s. RunDMC wrote an anthem specifically about the brand [0], which completely changed the Hip Hop's relationship w/ commerce.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think there’s enough evidence that they’re inspired by each other. movement lines aren’t original. they’re a classic visual archetype, commonly used to convey movement in static images. they exist in every comic book ever printed. Sans-serif fonts in all caps consisting of two circular letters “G”and “O” can look similar, depending on who’s looking no car
>they’re inspired by each other. That is unfortunate phrasing. The Jordan, Jesse, Go logo has been used for roughly a decade and the podcast is older than the Go language. There is only one possible direction that any inspiration could have flowed. Any one or two of these specific details can be explained away, but at a certain point the number of coincidence start to indicate that they are not in fact coincidences.
But there is not enough evidence here, to suggest that the new go logo lifted elements from that other logo.
Motion lines are not a coincidence they are a common solution to the problem of conveying motion in static imagery. It’s as common as using a cup when the problem being addressed is how to drink coffee.
A sans-serif word-mark is also not unique. It’s trendy. Everyone’s doing it. The major difference between the old google logo and the current one was the removal of serifs. For a company Google’s size that’s one expensive redesign just to remove serifs, since they had to get it re-printed on everything such as cars, signs, business cards, letterhead, clothing, etc. Going with a sans-serif is not an original design choice, it’s a trendy and safe one. And sans serif texts tend to look like each other in all caps with circular letters.
Ehh. I’m trying but I’m not seeing any peculiar elements that the two logos share, including the combination of public domain design choices, to the extent that would suggest one lifted from the other.