From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-23 20:00:36
JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
> Like this? (again, this can be implemented more carefully,
> it's just a sketch to explore the idea.)
I'm afraid the fatness of the nose connotes a bomb way too much.
Real rockets are fat-bottomed (except in a few cases where the
payload forms a sort of bulb at the top), while bombs are tear-drop
shaped (nice ballistic aerodynamics, vs. supersonic aerodynamics).
Also, bombs tend to have smaller fins, because they tend to require
less guidance (since most of the guidance is provided by the drop
vehicle), while rockets tend to have more conspicuous fins, because
they start from 0 velocity and they need to pitch and roll to
achieve the correct trajectory. So when I see your rocket, I
immediately think "Mk. 82 500 lb. bomb". And I'm afraid that font
still evokes Borland way too much. Especially the capital "B".
The logo looks very much like something that could have been
produced by the Borland marketing team (though if Borland were
to try to buy Boost, I'm sure it would be happy with the logo ;).
I think it would be nice if the ring were a little heftier, because
it makes "C++" seem a bit anemic. And I agree with Dave that the
+'s could be on the top (maybe tilt the rocket down a little to make
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk