- Boost - lists.boost.org

RE: [boost] Re: logos with rockets
by Brian Braatz 24 Nov '04

24 Nov '04

One could always shoot for the middle here, and have the BOOST word have "Jetpacks" on. I.e. evokes more of the power and energy Though, while I suggested that, I am not sure how to draw it :) > -----Original Message----- > From: boost-bounces(a)lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] > On Behalf Of Peter Petrov > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 3:26 PM > To: boost(a)lists.boost.org > Subject: [boost] Re: logos with rockets > > I don't think a rocket would be the most suitable symbol for Boost. To > me it communicates ideas like "flight" and "space", which obviously > don't fit very well. > > IMO, a much better variant would be a thunderbolt. It is commonly > associated with "power" and "energy", exactly in the spirit of the Boost > name. > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

2 1

Re: [boost] Logo substance. [was: Re: Logo... and page design.]
by JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z 24 Nov '04

24 Nov '04

----- Mensaje original ----- De: Rene Rivera <grafik.list(a)redshift-software.com> Fecha: Lunes, Noviembre 22, 2004 11:06 pm Asunto: [boost] Logo substance. [was: Re: Logo... and page design.] > David Abrahams wrote: > > > "Peter Dimov" <pdimov(a)mmltd.net> writes: > > > >>I'm not a logo expert by any stretch of the imagination... but it > >>seems to me that if you have a rocket, you don't need the text > >>"boost". The rocket is the logo. It needs to have some unique visual > >>features that establish its identity as the "boost/C++" rocket, of > >>course. > > > > Interesting. But every logo I've seen includes the name of the > entity> it stands for somehow. > > Yes, and that's done to enforce the association between the logo > and the > company identity. Eventually the logo becomes synonymous with > the > identity and starts getting used more frequently without the name. > AT&T, > Cingular, Apple, and Motorola come to mind in that respect. > > > Even if the rocket isn't part of some "Boost" > > text, you need to choose a font for "Boost" and decide how it sits > > next to or below the rocket. > > True, but it will likely be easier to decide on the substance of > the > logo without the text. No distractions that way. Not that one > should > forget totally about the text. But it's much easier to think about > what > can represent Boost, without the word Boost in it. > > So far I see three different concepts for logo: > > 1) The "<>" brackets. > > 2) The "++" operator. > > 3) The rocket. > Thogu I prefer the ++ theme, here's a possible design for the rocket idea, kinda retro-style. The execution can be much improved, just wanted to know whether the general style feels OK. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

10 15

Ref documenation point of clarity
by Edward Diener 24 Nov '04

24 Nov '04

This may be seen as a nitpick by I think the generalized one-line explanation for 'ref', as well as the text in the 'ref' introduction should say "passing reference parameters to generic functions" rather than "passing references to generic functions".

3 6

Logo designs for Boost + Boost.Build
by Cromwell Enage 24 Nov '04

24 Nov '04

I guess I could throw in a couple of pennies into this discussion. I agree that we should try to pin down the logo's essential elements before submitting any prototypes. (If we *really* need pictures, we might consider setting up a Boost Wiki page for them.) IMHO, there are only two essential elements: Boost and ++. "Boost" should be there for the obvious reason, and "++" evokes enough of a positive association to the implementation language without having to say "C++". Why isn't "<>" an essential element? Because it's too solution-specific. For example, I can't imagine a Python programmer wanting to use Boost.Python because it utilized templates. Boost.PP is another great library that doesn't use templates at all, though it works great with them. Finally, Boost is the proving grounds for libraries that are candidates for the entire C++ standard, not just the STL. Of course, w/out the "C++" element, there's no point in using "/", either. Now that I've proprosed the elements, I think the idea of using the pre-increment operator instead of post-increment should also be incorporated into the logo, so hard-core programmers could see at a glance that we value performance, too. Putting it all together, I believe the essence of the logo should be: ++Boost You could have the word "Boost" look like a space shuttle orbiter, as someone else suggested. The colors would be perfect, as orbiters are black and white (w/out the U.S. flag). The "++" would then look like smoke exhaust. The essence for the Boost.Build logo could then be ++Boost Build where "Build" would look like a rocket-launching truck. (A vehicle assembly building would be more accurate, but less resonant, not to mention too big.) One objection I could foresee with this idea would be that space shuttles might be phased out in the near future because of the last national tragedy involving them. Say anything you want about C++, that's one form of resonance I wouldn't want to evoke. Feel free to take my place in the bicycle shed if that's what we're ending up building :) Cromwell Enage __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com

2 1

RE: [boost] Re: logos with rockets
by Brian Braatz 24 Nov '04

24 Nov '04

I like page 5 the best IMO - a Couple of thoughts: * "Boost" is horizontal and not slanted- this evokes "Stability" (the slanted boost looks cool- but doesn't send the right message- i.e. it looks like a picture not hung properly) * care should be taken that the logo looks good in SMALL sizes and Large ones- this means that the image should not rely upon any distinctive features of the logo that do not show up well as a thumbnail When I worked at adobe (many years ago)- they actually had a "overall" logo for Adobe, and variations for large and small sizes Also- referring to #5, I suggest to bring the rocket down a little bit (because if you reduce the size this may not look properly) SUGGESTION- As this starts to settle, present the images of the logo in a SMALL MEDIUM and LARGE sizes- so that we can get a feel for what it looks like in those variations. That would be my my 2 cents :) > -----Original Message----- > From: boost-bounces(a)lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] > On Behalf Of David Abrahams > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 4:01 PM > To: boost(a)lists.boost.org > Subject: [boost] Re: logos with rockets > > Beman Dawes <bdawes(a)acm.org> writes: > > G> At 12:05 PM 11/23/2004, David Abrahams wrote: > > > > > >Here are some further attempts. Be sure to look at the first two > > >slides. > > > > > > http://www.luannocracy.com/logo.ppt > > > > The second one is a candidate, I'd say. > > There are more variations up there now. > > http://www.luannocracy.com/logo.ppt > http://www.luannocracy.com/logo.pdf > > -- > Dave Abrahams > Boost Consulting > http://www.boost-consulting.com > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

Re: [boost] Re: Logo substance. [was: Re: Logo... and page design.]
by JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z 24 Nov '04

24 Nov '04

----- Mensaje original ----- De: David Abrahams <dave(a)boost-consulting.com> Fecha: Martes, Noviembre 23, 2004 11:25 pm Asunto: [boost] Re: Logo substance. [was: Re: Logo... and page design.] > Rich Johnson <rjohnson(a)dogstar-interactive.com> writes: > > >>> I find this one too static, compared to Dave's attempts. > >>> It does have the sense of solidity that some have asked for, > >>> but I'd rather have a more dynamic feel (which reflects, I think, > >>> more accurately what boost is. Much of boost is not for the > >>> faint-hearted.) > >> > >> Thanks. Actually I thought that Joaquín's design was plenty > dynamic>> and better than mine on simplicity grounds. I do agree > about the ring > >> and the ++. Put a little white gap between the rocket and the > ring at > >> the intersection, and you've got your "C." > >> > > Hmm... two little puffs of exhaust could be +'s and the third > could be > > a 'C'-ring. It's kinda' cartoony, but fun. > > Or you could make the +es into four-pointed stars. > Like this? (again, this can be implemented more carefully, it's just a sketch to explore the idea.) Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

3 2

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Any interest in a boost::glob() function?
by Beman Dawes 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

At 03:16 PM 11/23/2004, Rich Johnson wrote: >Yup. This is getting further into hypothetical design than is probably >appropriate, but....assuming the FS provides an is_name_equivalent() >convenience function (which I think it should): > >A monolithic 'is_name_equivalent()' function that sets up and tears >down a regex each time it's invoked would have performance issues when >used in the context of the globber. > >A reusable 'name_comparator' object(functor) supplied by the FS layer >could be instantiated once as part of the glob_predicate. > >Of course this raises the issue of what happens when you glob across a >FS boundary(mount points and links)--must the name_comparator change >accordingly? On Windows, it is not possible to tell if two names (or paths) are equivalent just by looking at the name (or path). The question can only be answered by inspecting the current state of the filesystem. For example, if a directory contains both files "A" and "a", then these two names are not equivalent. But if the directory only contains a file named "A", then "a" is equivalent in that directory at the current time. Since you can't determine equivalence, if neither exist then the equivalent() function throws in that case. --Beman

1 0

RE: [boost] boost.thread : Can one create a thread with anobjectmember function?
by Tim Laplaca 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

I assume I need to include some bind includes to get this to compile (I'm getting "error: `bind' undeclared in namespace `boost'". I see several includes in /usr/include/boost/bind. Which should I include? None are obvious to me, like 'bind.hpp' would be. Thanks, Tim -----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces(a)lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 5:57 PM To: boost(a)lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] boost.thread : Can one create a thread with anobjectmember function? Tim Laplaca wrote: > boost::thread_group thrds; > > objclass * objthread; > > > > objthread = new objclass; > > thrds.create_thread( (objthread->p) ); Do this instead: boost::shared_ptr<objclass> objthread( new objclass ); thrds.create_thread( boost::bind( &objclass::dowork, objthread ) ); Even better, drop the objclass entirely and do this: void dowork( int tid, string valtwo ) { // do work } thrds.create_thread( boost::bind( dowork, my_thread_id, my_valtwo ) ); _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

2 1

Re: [boost] Re: Another logo proposal
by JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

----- Mensaje original ----- De: "Aaron W. LaFramboise" <aaronrabiddog51(a)aaronwl.com> Fecha: Martes, Noviembre 23, 2004 9:21 pm Asunto: Re: [boost] Re: Another logo proposal > David Abrahams wrote: > > > With all due respect, I find this logo direction dry, unattractive, > > and not memorable. > > For contrast, I think Joaquín Muñoz's preferred black on white > plus-plus > design is the best I've seen so far, including his rockets. If > all of > the thus-far proposed logos were put before me in a controlled > test, and > the examiner asked me which one of these logos was most likely the > logoof a high-quality, industrial-grade, corporate-accepted software > package, I'd go with the plus-plus design. > Hey, good to know there's someone on my side :) thanks! My particular "++ in a block" proposal aside, I think it'd be good that an stylized, abstract logo be adopted, or at least a simple one, amenable to multiple rendering contexts (b/w, small size, etc.) Cartoon logos might look fun, but they can clash with the environment in many aspects (general tone, color palette, style.) In contrast, a stylized logo has the same connotational power without any of the aforementioned potential problems. Companies that invest big bucks in corporate image know it well. I propose you a simple exercise: name the first 20 companies that come to your mind, visit their websites and take a look at the logo. How many of them have a figurative icon? How many of them have a multicolor icon (say, more than 3 colors)? Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

2 1

Re: RE: [boost] Another logo proposal
by Robert Geiman 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

---- Original Message ---- From: joaquin(a)tid.es To: boost(a)lists.boost.org Subject: Re: RE: [boost] Another logo proposal Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:30:24 +0100 >> >> >I think this is what you've got in mind. >> >Myself, I don't like it much. Not so compact, and >> >the "C++" thing becomes too obvious. But well, this >> >is just my opinion, of course. >> >> Close, but not quite what I was thinking. The version you created >> goes below this bottom of the first +, which as you said makes it >> less compact. >> >> Take that bottom C part and puch it up one "block", making sure you >> keep the + sign on top of the background. In essence, you'd really >> just be adding a single block of background in the lower left gap >of >> the first +, and another block to the lower right gap of the first >+, >> if that makes any sense. >> > >Like this? That's it exactly. Although it's almost not obvious enough that there's a C there. Of course, in the inverted version you created, if the background C was a slightly different color than the ++ it would help it stand out a little more. - Robert Geiman

3 3