On Wed, 23 May 2001, David Thiel wrote:

> What would one have instead as a mascot?  A photo of a Kinglet? :)

...man I don't know. I've seen a lot of discussion on this and
topic and to me, nothing has rung true yet.

While I think there are many choices that could work, I also
think that that there are some choices that will definitely
not work. The cartoon caricature is one that will definitely
meet some resistance in the corporate world.

But while I read these discussions, my mind wanders off
and I begin asking "Why?". Why does Ruby need
to follow after what everyone else has done.
Ruby has made a strong paradigm shift in the programming
community. It has taken a straightforward syntax and
combined that with a strong OO framework.

Ruby should probably take a similar lead with its icon.
BTW, why do we feel the need to have some kind of mascot?
(not that we don't need one.)

There are many things that have an icon that I recognize,
but I don't visualize the icon in my mind when I think
of the product, but usually its features.
For example,

Apache  - feather/horse  - I think of stable and fast web server
FreeBSD - devil   - I think of a rock solid OS with fast network stack
C/C++   - ??  - I think
Ruby    - ??  - Pain free fully OO language
Win98   - clouds - Sloppy and painful OS
and the list goes on.

People with weak products work hard on their icon
to help sell their product. But in the long run,
no matter how good the icon, the product must stand on
its own merits.

With Ruby, we have a great language. The icon cannot add
to that, but a bad icon can surely detract from it.

$0.04


=========================================================
Jim Freeze
jim / freeze.org
---------------------------------------------------------
No comment at this time.
http://www.freeze.org
=========================================================