From: Fabio Fracassi (f.fracassi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 04:10:39
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> Hi All,
> Here are my remarks about some of the logo candidates.
> C) the letters "C++" and the scope resolution operator "::" simply aren't
> very visually appealing.
I don't think so. For one, (not that this counts ;) ) my favorites are the
logos 20 43 and 39 (38 not so much)
All of them could improve a bit, e.g. #20 should be recolored, take a real
blue instead of the "baby blue" , strong bordeaux red instead of "dirty
pink" and have a bit more contrast in the white parts.
In #43 the dots in "::" should be round, that would be more appealing.
It would be also possible to change #43 to read "boost<c++>" (like #25)
Because "boost<c++>" IMHO tells every c++ programmer exactly what boost does
(even how it does it.) Further it would work in Text only browsers, too and
it could be reused for other language bindings, e.g. "boost<phyton>"
What I like about either "::", "++" and "< >" is that one imediately thinks
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk