
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
About the logo... In keeping with the style it's simple;
I know you put a great deal of effort into this, but IMO it's too complicated. Even though the first one was indeed too Borland-like, as a logo it functioned much better: it was simple, recognizable, and impactful. [snip] There is no obvious reason to me that the surrounding "<>" ought to have a different style from the "Boost" it contains. A similar argument goes for "{C++}". It's also not obvious that those are meant to be template brackets; they could be #include brackets.
* The slight perspective shadow of that, with the "{C++}" as part of the shadow.
The hope is to invoke STL, templates, libraries, and C++.
IMO it's trying too hard. My advice: don't try to evoke so many things. Say one thing and say it clearly.
One idea that we might start with is enclosed
Shouldn't "Boost" be elevating "C++" rather than pushing it down as depicted in your logo? IOW, giving C++ a boost should look more like this: C++ Boost Maybe use exponentiation? Boost C++ The suggested rocket idea is good too: ^ / \ / \ / \ | C++ | |_____| | B | | O | | O | | S | | T | |_____| /\ /\ (Obviously, you'd want something a little more impressive than my ASCII art.) -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;