Hi --
On Wed, 11 May 2005, Karl von Laudermann wrote:
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
Mark Hubbart, May 11:
One of the major tenets of Ruby is that it "makes coding fun".
Then how about making the comment read "Ruby: Makes Programming
Fun!"?,
Or how about "Ruby: Rediscover the Joy of Programming"
In general, I don't think slogans should tell people that what they've
been doing until now is bad, joyless, not fun, etc. That's kind of
hostile.
David
--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
I hadn't noticed the "diamonds are a girl's best friend" parallel up
until now. Now that it has been pointed out, however, I agree with
you: it should be the indefinite article.
Paul.
On 11/05/05, Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-talk@rawuncut.elitemail.org> wrote:
Paul Battley, May 11:
> Personally, I rather like the "best friend" slogan on the current
> redesign, although I think it should be "The programmer's best friend"
> rather than "A ~".No, no. The indefinite is definitely the way to go,
Austin Ziegler wrote:
I have a friend who is a jeweller. She has told me that the diamond cut is the most common cut, followed by the square cut.
One more question for your jeweller friend, as I don't have one of my own yet.
Which is: Would she recommend the Schneider loupe? I would like to appraise some of my favorite source code and this feels like the right way to do it. I am open to a Rodenstock of course (of course, of course) but be warned that I find some magnifications completely harrowing. I'm embarassed to say that I've never been past 4x. :blush pudding: I've really no idea what is down there.
_why
Michel Martens wrote:
Hi James,
We kind of made our work based on our ideas and the feedback we've got
on the first round, but that doesn't mean that we will impose that
logo or that we all think it's perfect. In fact, I'm glad a lot of
people is participating right now and I liked to read your opinion, as
it all adds for a better outcome.
Oh I don't mean to suggest there is some sort of secret society planning out the "Ruby look", and it would be crazy to try to get constant feedback during the process.
James
Nikolai Weibull ha scritto:
gabriele renzi, May 11:
IMVVHO "Ruby: Fun Oriented Programming" is still the best
That’d be “Ruby: Fun-Oriented Programming” actually. Perhaps this
spin-off is viable as well: “Ruby: Putting The ‘Fun’ In Object-Oriented
Programming”. This would be a reference to the “putting the ‘fun’ in
functional programming”-type comment about functional programming
languages,
nikolai
then should'nt our become "putting the 'proc' in .." ? 
There is a huge difference between a nice image, and a logo. Many
people make the point that there should not be a Ruby logo, however a
logo has many benefits, the most important of which in my opinion is
instant recognition. If you're going to go to the trouble of having
an image there at all, make it one that people will remember and
associate with the site/language/community/whatever, rather than just
one that is 'pretty'.
I think the gemstone image fails in that regard. It's too obvious,
and it has nothing to set it apart from any other image of a ruby. I
like the links that Michel provides, and suggest also OSI [1], Debian
[2], and even Java [3]. All have logos that I could pick out of a
crowd very easily. I'm not saying I like the websites themselves,
just the logo.
Also, I still think the gemstone is limited in its use. I think it'd
be bad on a tshirt or other clothing (never seen a tshirt with smooth
gradients like that, at least not one that lasted more than one wash)
and it'd be bad at smaller sizes because it would lose too much
detail.
I posted some other comments on the blog yesterday too. I basically
don't like the look of the latest designs much at all... But I am
certainly in the minority.
Jason
[1] http://opensource.org
[2] http://debian.org
[3] http://java.sun.com
On 5/11/05, Michel Martens <blaumag@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/11/05, Karl von Laudermann <doodpants@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Check out some of the icons/logos/emblems/whatever used at the top of
> these other open source project web pages. None of them are flat,
> simple geometric shapes, and I'm sure they've all been
> reproduced on T-shirts and trade show banners.
> http://www.freebsd.org/
> http://www.linux.org/
> http://www.gimp.org/
> http://www.opendarwin.org/Karl, those are examples of bad logos. The Ruby gem is infinitely
better than that.Besides: I don't think that all open source projects should look
alike, and good design can be found in projects like Firefox, Mozilla
(http://www.mozilla.org), PostgreSQL (http://www.postgresql.org/\),
WordPress (http://wordpress.org/\), etc.Michel.
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
It results out of research, reasoning and rationality.
After a lot of the above and a few pints I came up with...
"Ruby: Don't take your love to town."
--
J Lambert
David A. Black wrote:
In general, I don't think slogans should tell people that what they've
been doing until now is bad, joyless, not fun, etc. That's kind of
hostile.
Big agreement. Advocacy works best when it avoids put-downs and comparisons (e.g. faster, better, more fun).
Say what Ruby is, not what other things are not.
James
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis, May 11:
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
Mark Hubbart, May 11:
One of the major tenets of Ruby is that it "makes coding fun".
Then how about making the comment read “Ruby: Makes Programming
Fun!”?,Simply open an new thread, [SLOGAN] ..., and ask the community to post
a slogan.Then collect the results on a wiki-page, thus anyone can review for
some time.please note:
The new [slogan] will not [be] selected by democracy (vote).
It results out of research, reasoning and rationality.
Or?,
yes.
[marketing-]research, [marketing-]reasoning, [marketing-]rationality.
but: every community-member can present a slogan together with the right unbeatable rationales.
[of course things are not as easy as with the "singleton class" to "x class" rename, where a nearly absolute result can be expected.]
For the slogan, people should work-out the "requirements" first, like "should imply simplicity" "should imply efficiecy" etc.
And of course: the main topic of _this_ thread is the design, not the slogan.
So its not nice to write to much about the slogan, as the designers expect feedback to the design, which they must 'fish out' of the many off-topics, including mine which I finalize now.
..
gabriele renzi, May 11:
> > IMVVHO "Ruby: Fun Oriented Programming" is still the best
> That’d be “Ruby: Fun-Oriented Programming” actually. Perhaps this
> spin-off is viable as well: “Ruby: Putting The ‘Fun’ In
> Object-Oriented Programming”. This would be a reference to the
> “putting the ‘fun’ in functional programming”-type comment about
> functional programming languages,
then should'nt our become "putting the 'proc' in .." ?
Heh, I guess so :-),
nikolai
--
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/\!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}
I for one would suggest:
Ruby: Kill'em all[1], let the God save them!
Hope that helps 
On 05/11/2005 09:59 PM, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
It results out of research, reasoning and rationality.
After a lot of the above and a few pints I came up with...
"Ruby: Don't take your love to town."
--
Dr Balwinder Singh Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
CLLO (Chief Linux Learning Officer) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Anu's Linux@HOME Distros: Ubuntu, Fedora, Knoppix
More: http://anu.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/
[1] All other scripting languages.
James Britt wrote:
Big agreement. Advocacy works best when it avoids put-downs and
comparisons (e.g. faster, better, more fun).Say what Ruby is, not what other things are not.
I agree. But in a sense the current slogan has implications like that:
Ruby: Programmers' Best Friend (unlike all those other conniving,
back-stabbing evil languages, who only want to hurt you)
I mean even if it is true...
Ryan
Hi --
James Britt wrote:
Big agreement. Advocacy works best when it avoids put-downs and
comparisons (e.g. faster, better, more fun).Say what Ruby is, not what other things are not.
I agree. But in a sense the current slogan has implications like that:
Ruby: Programmers' Best Friend (unlike all those other conniving,
back-stabbing evil languages, who only want to hurt you)
I *knew* someone would mention that
It still doesn't strike me as confrontational or challenging in the
same way. I can't analyze exactly why, but I think it's partly
because "best friend" is so clearly a metaphor, and fully affirmative,
whereas "Make programming fun again" (or whatever) is concrete and
actually says something negative about what the person has been doing.
Then again, for all I know people do react defensively to the "best
friend" thing too.
David
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Ryan Leavengood wrote:
--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
It is difficult. This, I think, is why marketing consultants are able
to earn a living.
In general, one tends not to see advertising attacking a product's
opponents. I suspect this is because, by tainting one's competitors,
one casts the whole field in a poor light - and this includes the
product being promoted.
(Note, of course, that this doesn't seem to apply to politics, where
attacking the opponent is standard fare. Then again, this might work
because the electorate chooses the "least worst" from a group none of
whom it likes...)
Personally, my feeling is that "best friend" is a positive expression
- amongst all my programming language friends, Ruby is the best -
whereas "rediscover the joy of programming" (for example) suggests
that Ruby is just a good apple in a rotten barrel. The latter is
perhaps not the most flattering of implications.
Paul.
On 11/05/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
It still doesn't strike me as confrontational or challenging in the
same way. I can't analyze exactly why, but I think it's partly
because "best friend" is so clearly a metaphor, and fully affirmative,
whereas "Make programming fun again" (or whatever) is concrete and
actually says something negative about what the person has been doing.Then again, for all I know people do react defensively to the "best
friend" thing too.
David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
James Britt wrote:
Big agreement. Advocacy works best when it avoids put-downs and
comparisons (e.g. faster, better, more fun).Say what Ruby is, not what other things are not.
I agree. But in a sense the current slogan has implications like that:
Ruby: Programmers' Best Friend (unlike all those other conniving,
back-stabbing evil languages, who only want to hurt you)I *knew* someone would mention that
It still doesn't strike me as confrontational or challenging in the
same way. I can't analyze exactly why, but I think it's partly
because "best friend" is so clearly a metaphor, and fully affirmative,
whereas "Make programming fun again" (or whatever) is concrete and
actually says something negative about what the person has been doing.
I agree, though I can see the implication that, if language R is your _best_ friend, then languages P or J are merely _good_ friends. But don't lend them big sums of money or expect them to show up after promising to help you move, the bastards.
Then again, for all I know people do react defensively to the "best
friend" thing too.
See, on the other hand, that's part of the fun.
James
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Ryan Leavengood wrote:
James Britt wrote:
I agree. But in a sense the current slogan has implications like that:
Ruby: Programmers' Best Friend (unlike all those other conniving,
back-stabbing evil languages, who only want to hurt you)I *knew* someone would mention that
It still doesn't strike me as confrontational or challenging in the
same way. I can't analyze exactly why, but I think it's partly
because "best friend" is so clearly a metaphor, and fully affirmative,
whereas "Make programming fun again" (or whatever) is concrete and
actually says something negative about what the person has been doing.
I've always thought that the phrase came from the common saying:
"Diamonds are a woman's best friend."
Am I wrong?
--
John Long
http://wiseheartdesign.com
No. It is inspired from the song title.
matz.
In message "Re: Redesign 2005, Round Two" on Thu, 12 May 2005 08:17:34 +0900, "John W. Long" <ng@johnwlong.com> writes:
I've always thought that the phrase came from the common saying:
"Diamonds are a woman's best friend."
Am I wrong?
John W. Long wrote:
I've always thought that the phrase came from the common saying:
"Diamonds are a woman's best friend."
Am I wrong?
http://www.google.com/search?q="*+is+*+best+friend"
http://www.google.com/search?q="*+is+the+*+best+friend"
James
Which song?
--
John
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
In message "Re: Redesign 2005, Round Two" > on Thu, 12 May 2005 08:17:34 +0900, "John W. Long" <ng@johnwlong.com> writes:
>I've always thought that the phrase came from the common saying:
>
> "Diamonds are a woman's best friend."
>
>Am I wrong?No. It is inspired from the song title.
matz.
Which song?
Diamonds are a girl's best friend?
On 5/11/05, John W. Long <ng@johnwlong.com> wrote:
--
JohnYukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> In message "Re: Redesign 2005, Round Two" > > on Thu, 12 May 2005 08:17:34 +0900, "John W. Long" <ng@johnwlong.com> writes:
>
> >I've always thought that the phrase came from the common saying:
> >
> > "Diamonds are a woman's best friend."
> >
> >Am I wrong?
>
> No. It is inspired from the song title.
>
> matz.
>
--
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)