From: Rich Johnson (rjohnson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-22 14:57:41
On Monday, November 22, 2004, at 01:22 PM, Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
> Daniel Frey ha escrito:
>> I like it. Although a version without the L-shapes might be
>> too. Or maybe fill the edges, too? Hmm... it just looks a bit nervous
>> me with the "gaps" in two corners. With filled edges, it's more like a
>> solid block. And "solid" is a good word to associate with boost, IMHO.
> Well, here are all the possibilities so that we can compare them.
> My personal preference is, in this order:
> The crosses alone (2) lose the solid look, while in the full square
> version (4), it looks like, instead of six pieces, the two crosses are
> depicted against a flat background, which ruins the lego metaphor.
> As for (1) and (2), the added little square at the bottom (2) renders
> the logo more stable, though in the other hand the result is not as
> clean as (1).
> René Rivera wrote:
>> I think the L shapes are distracting from the ++ in this case because
>> they are too similar to the ++. Using another framing element that
>> doesn't resemble the ++ would likely work better.
> I can't come up with another framing scheme that maintains the lego
> metaphor. To me, those L shapes do not really form a frame, but
> are supposed to be stacked along the cross pieces. Your anschauung
> may vary, of course :)
I like the stair-step imagery of the second .png- (the one with no
It's a nice play on the use of building blocks. I think it still
carries a blocky, solid/stable feel.
Is there a single color restriction for ease of printing? If not
adding a third '+' in a different color (or perhaps in outline) would
further emphasize building on C++.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk