A decade+ ago I created the one attached, and I've seen used in some Smalltalk related sites. I still like it but it can be done better. I don't like the balloon, it's an indirect reference to the Byte cover which hasn't much to do with Smalltalk directly; as Pascal triangles didn't have much to do with Pascal [1] the programming language. I think we can play a little more with the brackets which are something kind of unique to Smalltalk syntax. OTOH we have Pharo logo which is nice and unambiguous. Regards, [1] A prevoius cover of Byte Magazine shown Pascal triangles in a choppy sea, an you could see what later would be the Smalltalk island, isolated in an "ivory tower" way of looking at the world, and escaping from the sea problem by avoiding it completely, hence the balloon. http://70sscifiart.tumblr.com/post/157035900745/pascals-triangle-a-1978-byte... Esteban A. Maringolo 2017-05-02 9:06 GMT-03:00 Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com>:
2017-05-02 13:19 GMT+02:00 horrido <horrido.hobbies@gmail.com>:
Thanks. The reason I think it's a problem is because I tried to use this logo in the Wikipedia Smalltalk article, but the Wikipedia overlords kept rejecting it, telling me that it wasn't an "official" logo and thus Wikipedia would not accept it. What makes a logo "official?" Why are all the other language logos in my article (which I gleaned from Wikipedia) any more "official?"
Interesting angle for the problem (didn't think of that one).
My analysis as I would review. The common agreed logo for smalltalk is a rendering of the Byte cover, this makes it the 'official' logo. Your's hasn't reached the level of agreement / support necessary to reach that level. And Wikipedia isn't the place where this change is to be decided: wikipedia will follow the will of the overall community.
Other logos are either endorsed by the community or used by the master site for the language: for example, the Caml logo, the Clojure logo, both appeara on the 'official' website for the language. For Caml, many alternatives logos exist, but none of the alternatives appear on the wikipedia page.
Now, changing a logo requires overcoming some friction(*)... writing around Smalltalk and allways tagging with it could be a way to make it popular and displace the old one. Your target would be reached once Wikipedia accept yours, and that may require ESUG to decide to switch, and so on.
Regards,
Thierry
Thierry Goubier wrote
Hi Richard,
2017-05-02 12:57 GMT+02:00 horrido <
horrido.hobbies@
>:
I have A Logo Proposal for Smalltalk
<https://medium.com/@richardeng/a-logo-proposal-for-smalltalk-e78180f3ec02 > >
I like it.
. But there is one huge (insurmountable?) obstacle.
If you refer to a standard 'org' that would force the use / change of a logo, then I see no obstacle. I like it that the multiple shapes Smalltalk has have left space for creativity and freedom.
If your logo is nice and creative enough, and that it can be freely used, then it will raise through the community and replace / displace the old one.
Regards,
Thierry
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/A-Logo- Proposal-for-Smalltalk-tp4945122.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/A-Logo-Proposal-for-Smalltalk-tp4945122p4945127.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
