In article <3AE87DD5.DE927E67 / t-online.de>,
Stephan Kš╬per  <Stephan.Kaemper / t-online.de> wrote:
>Conrad Schneiker wrote:
>> 
>> (OK, some people just _have_ to have a mascot. Well then, as one pair of
>> famously pragmatic authors stated, Ruby is a transparent language. So
>> let's have a perfectly transparent mascot. :-)
>> 
>> Conrad Schneiker
>> (This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)
>
>Hey, I really like that one. Now, other this are visible,
>notwithstanding transparent. Spectacles (glasses if you prefer that) for
>example. Or... windows. Just kidding. ;-)
>
>Anyway, I don't really believe that there's any mascot out there that
>will be aceppted (if only by a decent majority) _and_ as transparent,
>clean and sweet (the latter two Kent Beck's words if memory servers
>right), and brilliant (my word ;-)  ) as Ruby itself.

I'm not sure what's wrong with the logo on RubyCentral - the ruby with the 
code that you can see through it.  Sure, it's not a mascot, but I think 
it's a nice looking logo.

Then there's the issue of Perl's mascot, the camel.  What does a camel 
have to do with perl?  Wouldn't an oyster have been more appropriate?  
Shouldn't the CAML language get the camel?  It's all because O'Reilly 
chose to put a camel on the cover of the Programming Perl book - there 
doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their choice, but as the years 
went by the Camel became the symbol of Perl.

Phil