On 10/30/07, James Britt <james.britt / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But I did add a comment on rubyinside.com; I do not care for the new
> logo, finding it clumsy and complex, useless at small resolutions and
> monotone renderings, and generally lacking in the qualities that make
> Ruby appealing.  It looks like something for QVC, not a 21st C.
> programming language.

That was my first thought too. It lacks contrast and "edge
definition", and doesn't scale down well at all ((!) - that was one of
the design guidelines, wasn't it?). Plus, too much  text.

> Photorealism is the static typing of graphic design.

Any sufficiently detailed logo contains an ad-hoc, informally-defined,
artefact-ridden approximation of half a photograph? :)

martin