[|] Smalltalk logo - Smalltalk

Bob Nemec wrote:
> Some time ago, the Smalltalk community tried to define a 'Powered by
> Smalltalk' logo. None of the suggested logos became a de-facto standard.
>
> As part of the Smalltalk Central initiative, the Smalltalk Industry Council
> now advocates for the use of [|] (bracket, vertical bar, bracket), as in:
> '[|] Powered by Smalltalk'. [|] represents a unique aspect of Smalltalk
> syntax, it's easy to include in both graphic and text based content, and,
> over time, will become a recognized logo.
>
> The individual look of the logo should be tailored to the web site. Notice
> how the one on Smalltalk Central blends nicely into the view. And being a
> simple text string, it can easily be added to your email sig file.
>
> For Smalltalk advocacy sites that are not Smalltalk based, consider using
> '[|] Powering Smalltalk' (I've added a simple one to the Toronto Smalltalk
> User Group web site) and please link it to www.Smalltalk-Central.com ...
> let's make it the 1st Googled Smalltalk site.
>
> [|] was created by Smalltalkers in the not-so-secret 'Knights of the Square
> Bracket'. It has an honourable history, and the community can make it
> relevant. I invite you all to join in using [|] to symbolize Smalltalk.
>
> Bob Nemec
> Executive Director
> [|] Smalltalk Industry Council

Bob,

Thanks for doing the job your doing. It is much appreciated.

However, I am not interested in pursuing this avenue. I believe it to
be a huge mistake. To take one of the least understood and cryptic
looking items from Smalltalk and turn it into a logo is a bad idea. I
understand why a Smalltalker would key in on this and what it might
mean to them. That amounts very little. Maybe cute. Maybe slick.

But to the rest of the world in text it appears to be nothing
intelligible. If a person was even to make the connection to the
language syntax, it would imply a cryptic syntax. Something they
should stay away from. This is not the impression I want to give.

Furthermore, limiting ourselves to a logo that is easily represent in
text, makes us appear to be amateurs in graphics. It shows how behind
we really are (or at least makes us appear behind). Personally I
don't believe we should worry about a text version. That is what the
phrase is for.

Again thanks for the work you do to help Smalltalk.

Chris "Powered by Smalltalk" Lopeman

P.S. Where can one get all the wonderful graphic logos developed?

I am sure you and your organization do good work and are
well-intentioned, but personally I have an extremely bad taste in my
mouth about self-appointed (or "other appointed") "groups" and
"councils" issuing "de-facto standards." And I know others who feel
the same way.

Bob,

> >
> > [|] was created by Smalltalkers in the not-so-secret 'Knights of
> > the Square Bracket'. It has an honourable history, and the
> > community can make it relevant. I invite you all to join in using
> > [|] to symbolize Smalltalk.
> >

<snip>

>
> But to the rest of the world in text it appears to be nothing
> intelligible. If a person was even to make the connection to the
> language syntax, it would imply a cryptic syntax. Something they
> should stay away from. This is not the impression I want to give.
>
> Furthermore, limiting ourselves to a logo that is easily represent in
> text, makes us appear to be amateurs in graphics. It shows how behind
> we really are (or at least makes us appear behind). Personally I
> don't believe we should worry about a text version. That is what the
> phrase is for.

In some ways I agree with Chris. The textual version of [|] means
nothing to people outside Smalltalk circles and it doesn't look
particularly "cool", which seems to be a prerequisite for these sorts
of logo these days.

However, the square bracket idea is interesting, and not just because
of its honourable history. When I first saw C++ (coming from C) it was
the :: that "frightened" me. It was one of the things that stood out on
a page of C++ source that initially made it difficult to read. It was,
in some ways, difficult to see past whilst also being fundamental to
what was different about C++ .

I suspect the same effect may occur with square brackets and Smalltalk
newbies. As we all know, the blocks are one of the powerful and unique
aspects of Smalltalk. When Russ Lomax (one of the original Dolphin
developers) was asked what he liked about the language he replied,
"it's the blocks". If you're Britiish know the word "bollocks" then
you'll get the joke. Anyway, I digress...

Perhaps it would be possible to capitalize on the weirdness of the
block syntax providing we also make it plain that this somehow also
holds the power of the language. At the the same time it needs (IMO) to
be graphical and cool and something we could splash on a T shirt. So
I've come up with this as an example:

http://www.object-arts.com/downloads...areBracket.png

The sword symbolises the power, both of the blocks, and Smalltalk in
general and it keys in with the "knights" motif. It's just an idea and
I'm no graphic artist but it could be a starting point for something
better. What do think?

Best regards

Andy Bower
Object Arts Ltd





--
Best regards,

Andy Bower
Dolphin Support
www.object-arts.com

Small Question: What does the penguin mean to people outside the Linux
community?

That's right, absolutely nothing. This is about PR, not about what the
symbol means right now.


Andy Bower wrote:
> Bob,
>
> > >
> > > [|] was created by Smalltalkers in the not-so-secret 'Knights of
> > > the Square Bracket'. It has an honourable history, and the
> > > community can make it relevant. I invite you all to join in using
> > > [|] to symbolize Smalltalk.
> > >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > But to the rest of the world in text it appears to be nothing
> > intelligible. If a person was even to make the connection to the
> > language syntax, it would imply a cryptic syntax. Something they
> > should stay away from. This is not the impression I want to give.
> >
> > Furthermore, limiting ourselves to a logo that is easily represent in
> > text, makes us appear to be amateurs in graphics. It shows how behind
> > we really are (or at least makes us appear behind). Personally I
> > don't believe we should worry about a text version. That is what the
> > phrase is for.
>
> In some ways I agree with Chris. The textual version of [|] means
> nothing to people outside Smalltalk circles and it doesn't look
> particularly "cool", which seems to be a prerequisite for these sorts
> of logo these days.
>
> However, the square bracket idea is interesting, and not just because
> of its honourable history. When I first saw C++ (coming from C) it was
> the :: that "frightened" me. It was one of the things that stood out on
> a page of C++ source that initially made it difficult to read. It was,
> in some ways, difficult to see past whilst also being fundamental to
> what was different about C++ .
>
> I suspect the same effect may occur with square brackets and Smalltalk
> newbies. As we all know, the blocks are one of the powerful and unique
> aspects of Smalltalk. When Russ Lomax (one of the original Dolphin
> developers) was asked what he liked about the language he replied,
> "it's the blocks". If you're Britiish know the word "bollocks" then
> you'll get the joke. Anyway, I digress...
>
> Perhaps it would be possible to capitalize on the weirdness of the
> block syntax providing we also make it plain that this somehow also
> holds the power of the language. At the the same time it needs (IMO) to
> be graphical and cool and something we could splash on a T shirt. So
> I've come up with this as an example:
>
> http://www.object-arts.com/downloads...areBracket.png
>
> The sword symbolises the power, both of the blocks, and Smalltalk in
> general and it keys in with the "knights" motif. It's just an idea and
> I'm no graphic artist but it could be a starting point for something
> better. What do think?
>
> Best regards
>
> Andy Bower
> Object Arts Ltd
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Andy Bower
> Dolphin Support
> www.object-arts.com

Hello,

Andy Bower escribió:
>
> Perhaps it would be possible to capitalize on the weirdness of the
> block syntax providing we also make it plain that this somehow also
> holds the power of the language. At the the same time it needs (IMO) to
> be graphical and cool and something we could splash on a T shirt. So
> I've come up with this as an example:
>
> http://www.object-arts.com/downloads...areBracket.png
>
> The sword symbolises the power, both of the blocks, and Smalltalk in
> general and it keys in with the "knights" motif. It's just an idea and
> I'm no graphic artist but it could be a starting point for something
> better. What do think?

I like your "epic" approach to this, but placing a sword between the
brackets make the logo too tall, or when downsized makes the sword very
tiny.

Thinking about this, I came with the epic approach, but instead of using
a sword as the foreground element, I tough about an heraldic approach
with a shield with the square brackets (without the pipe) as the
"kingdom logo", and a sword and an axe crossed behind the shield.

The sword could represent the elegance and the axe the power (I use an
axe when refactoring ;-) ).

However... is hard to synthetize this on a small logo, with few colors.
I'll try to make a draft and post it here.

Regards,

--
Esteban

Andy Bower wrote:
> Bob,
>
> > >
> > > [|] was created by Smalltalkers in the not-so-secret 'Knights of
> > > the Square Bracket'. It has an honourable history, and the
> > > community can make it relevant. I invite you all to join in using
> > > [|] to symbolize Smalltalk.
> > >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > But to the rest of the world in text it appears to be nothing
> > intelligible. If a person was even to make the connection to the
> > language syntax, it would imply a cryptic syntax. Something they
> > should stay away from. This is not the impression I want to give.
> >
> > Furthermore, limiting ourselves to a logo that is easily represent in
> > text, makes us appear to be amateurs in graphics. It shows how behind
> > we really are (or at least makes us appear behind). Personally I
> > don't believe we should worry about a text version. That is what the
> > phrase is for.
>
> In some ways I agree with Chris. The textual version of [|] means
> nothing to people outside Smalltalk circles and it doesn't look
> particularly "cool", which seems to be a prerequisite for these sorts
> of logo these days.
>
> However, the square bracket idea is interesting, and not just because
> of its honourable history. When I first saw C++ (coming from C) it was
> the :: that "frightened" me. It was one of the things that stood out on
> a page of C++ source that initially made it difficult to read. It was,
> in some ways, difficult to see past whilst also being fundamental to
> what was different about C++ .
>
> I suspect the same effect may occur with square brackets and Smalltalk
> newbies. As we all know, the blocks are one of the powerful and unique
> aspects of Smalltalk. When Russ Lomax (one of the original Dolphin
> developers) was asked what he liked about the language he replied,
> "it's the blocks". If you're Britiish know the word "bollocks" then
> you'll get the joke. Anyway, I digress...
>
> Perhaps it would be possible to capitalize on the weirdness of the
> block syntax providing we also make it plain that this somehow also
> holds the power of the language. At the the same time it needs (IMO) to
> be graphical and cool and something we could splash on a T shirt. So
> I've come up with this as an example:
>
> http://www.object-arts.com/downloads...areBracket.png
>
> The sword symbolises the power, both of the blocks, and Smalltalk in
> general and it keys in with the "knights" motif. It's just an idea and
> I'm no graphic artist but it could be a starting point for something
> better. What do think?
>
> Best regards
>
> Andy Bower
> Object Arts Ltd
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Andy Bower
> Dolphin Support
> www.object-arts.com

Probably worth remembering that Ruby also uses the phrase "blocks" for
anonymous functions.

And I'm not really sure what you mean by "blocks are one of the
powerful and unique aspects of Smalltalk", other languages provide
anonymous functions (and some provide closures) so maybe you're just
talking about unique syntax?

What might seem odd to non-Smalltalkers is that blocks are the only way
to get a free-standing function.

Andy Bower wrote:
> Bob,
>
> > >
> > > [|] was created by Smalltalkers in the not-so-secret 'Knights of
> > > the Square Bracket'. It has an honourable history, and the
> > > community can make it relevant. I invite you all to join in using
> > > [|] to symbolize Smalltalk.
> > >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > But to the rest of the world in text it appears to be nothing
> > intelligible. If a person was even to make the connection to the
> > language syntax, it would imply a cryptic syntax. Something they
> > should stay away from. This is not the impression I want to give.
> >
> > Furthermore, limiting ourselves to a logo that is easily represent in
> > text, makes us appear to be amateurs in graphics. It shows how behind
> > we really are (or at least makes us appear behind). Personally I
> > don't believe we should worry about a text version. That is what the
> > phrase is for.
>
> In some ways I agree with Chris. The textual version of [|] means
> nothing to people outside Smalltalk circles and it doesn't look
> particularly "cool", which seems to be a prerequisite for these sorts
> of logo these days.
>
> However, the square bracket idea is interesting, and not just because
> of its honourable history. When I first saw C++ (coming from C) it was
> the :: that "frightened" me. It was one of the things that stood out on
> a page of C++ source that initially made it difficult to read. It was,
> in some ways, difficult to see past whilst also being fundamental to
> what was different about C++ .
>
> I suspect the same effect may occur with square brackets and Smalltalk
> newbies. As we all know, the blocks are one of the powerful and unique
> aspects of Smalltalk. When Russ Lomax (one of the original Dolphin
> developers) was asked what he liked about the language he replied,
> "it's the blocks". If you're Britiish know the word "bollocks" then
> you'll get the joke. Anyway, I digress...
>
> Perhaps it would be possible to capitalize on the weirdness of the
> block syntax providing we also make it plain that this somehow also
> holds the power of the language. At the the same time it needs (IMO) to
> be graphical and cool and something we could splash on a T shirt. So
> I've come up with this as an example:
>
> http://www.object-arts.com/downloads...areBracket.png
>
> The sword symbolises the power, both of the blocks, and Smalltalk in
> general and it keys in with the "knights" motif. It's just an idea and
> I'm no graphic artist but it could be a starting point for something
> better. What do think?
>
> Best regards
>
> Andy Bower
> Object Arts Ltd
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Andy Bower
> Dolphin Support
> www.object-arts.com

I like the sword. But the brackets still kill it for me. Maybe if we
could disguise the brackets, so that we could recognize them and yet
they would be attractive to others. A sort of hidden meaning. Just as
an example we turn the brackets in this logo to some sort of leafy
vines. Maintain the basic bracket shape, but it would be more
decorative, like a border. Now we might be talking about something
that would be attractive to all.

James,

> Small Question: What does the penguin mean to people outside the Linux
> community?>
> That's right, absolutely nothing. This is about PR, not about what
> the symbol means right now.

Show people a cute penguin and they'll say, "ah, a penguin, how cute".
Show them [|] and they'll go "uh?" (show them (|) and they might at
least laugh).

The point is that a successful logo must have some appeal (or at least
hook of recognition) for people who know nothing about Smalltalk.

--
Best regards,

Andy Bower
Dolphin Support
www.object-arts.com

lopemanc@swbell.net wrote:

> I like the sword. But the brackets still kill it for me. Maybe if we
> could disguise the brackets, so that we could recognize them and yet
> they would be attractive to others. A sort of hidden meaning.

I'm neither a marketeer nor an SCAer, but didn't quite a lot of swords have
rather comprehensive and elaborate hand/wrist guards ? Perhaps they could be
made sort of square ;-)

BTW (just as an aside), I find it odd that the Knights favour the [] as their
insignia -- typical Smalltalk code uses : (colon) a lot more often than [ and ]
put together, and the keyword-based syntax is probably even more characteristic
of Smalltalk than the ubiquitous use of blocks/closures/whatevers.

Although I'll concede that there are establishments where the course of
prudence does not include identifying oneself as a "Knight of the Colon"...

-- chris