[|] Smalltalk logo
Bob Nemec
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
lope...@swbell.net
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?
enigmai...@aol.com
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.
Andy Bower
> >
> > [|] 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/misc/SquareBracket.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
jar...@gmail.com
community?
That's right, absolutely nothing. This is about PR, not about what the
symbol means right now.
Esteban A. Maringolo
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/misc/SquareBracket.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
Isaac Gouy
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.
Esteban A. Maringolo
> 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.
This is true, marketing today focuses more on branding than design.
Design isn't dead, but with branding power you can record a poor logo
on people retina.
Indeed, many new logos from old companies relies more on branding, I
recall Telefonica's Movistar (02 in some countries) as a recent one,
with a awful logo, and more than 12 millions of euros invested on
promoting it on Spain (and neighbors) and all south America.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movistar>
Regards,
--
Esteban.
lope...@swbell.net
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.
Andy Bower
> 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.
Chris Uppal
> 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
ramon...@gmail.com
> 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.
Um, blocks are not anonymous functions, though they serve the same
purpose in much code, they are also full blow objects with methods on
them, and you can add methods to them. Blocks are used to implement
many of smalltalk's control structures. They're quite a bit more
powerful than just anonymous functions.
[self doWork] fork. "blocks do threading"
[self condition] whileTrue:[self doWork] "blocks implement predicate
logic"
self list do:[:each | each doStuff] "and also act as anonymous
functions"
[self someError] on: Error do: [self someHandler] "blocks implement
exception handling"
Let's not sandbag blocks as "just" anonymous functions, they are so
much more.
lope...@swbell.net
A little out of wack but we could go this route for a text version.
[:[
Is the little guy happy or sad about Smalltalk.....I ask myself that
everyday.
Bob Nemec
vendors and advocates. Its mandate is to promote Smalltalk. We do not set
standards, and the only 'control' of Smalltalk that STIC has is the
voluntary action of its members.
We knew that no one logo would satisfy everyone. [|] does allow for enough
flexibility that anyone can put their own spin on it (I love Andy's
version), just like the multiple dialects of Smalltalk each add their own
interpretations on the common language.
[|] is not a standard, de-factor or otherwise. It's a logo that STIC
advocates; STIC does not dictate. My hope is that [|] gets adopted enough
to become a recognizable symbol. But the choice to use it is entirely your
own.
Bob Nemec
Executive Director
Smalltalk Industry Council
<enigmai...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157120636.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Esteban A. Maringolo
> 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.
This is my small contribution to the cause:
<http://emaringolo.users.dolphinmap.net/artwork.php>.
I'll add more later.
Regards,
--
Esteban.
Bruce Badger
> Bob Nemec escribió:
>> 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'.
> This is my small contribution to the cause:
> <http://emaringolo.users.dolphinmap.net/artwork.php>.
I took part in some of the discussion about this on the Smalltalk Central
mailing list.
I rather like [|] because it is a simple motif that can be used in many
ways. It's easy to use in text and (as Esteban has shown) can look great
when embellished as a graphic. The base symbol is monochrome which makes
it flexible enough to be used in black and white or reversed or as a mask
or embossed etc. [|] is simple and scalable enough to be added to other
logos (like the Cincom Smalltalk or GemStone or Dolphin ones) much as one
might add a © or ®.
As with many logos, the "meaning" if any is not obvious - the important
thing is that through consistent use the logo makes people think of
Smalltalk when they see it. I find the story associated with [|] to be
less contrived that most: It's just derived from a unique part of the
Smalltalk syntax and looks symmetrical.
Lastly I think that these things are impossible to reach a consensus on.
Everyone has different ideas about what's a good logo and what's not. I
feel that in these situations we need to nominate someone to pick
something. Bob has taken on the job of heading up STIC and it seems
reasonable to be that he should (after listening to all the debate) pick
the logo he reckons is best from a STIC POV. I'm certainly glad it's not
my call and I'd like to thank Bob for standing up for the almost
inevitable flame fest.
Of course if someone can come up with a logo that *everyone* agrees with,
I think we should use that instead (and I bet Bob would too) ...
All the best,
Bruce
Isaac Gouy
> > 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.
>
> Um, blocks are not anonymous functions,
Let's get this out of the way, I think it's clear that you mean -
blocks are not /just/ anonymous functions.
> though they serve the same
> purpose in much code, they are also full blow objects with methods on
> them, and you can add methods to them.
That isn't specifically about blocks, as I expect you know, most
Smalltalk implementations include a representation in Smalltalk of the
language implementation - the compiler, debugger, method definition,
variable binding, compiled method etc are also full blown objects with
methods on them...
> Blocks are used to implement
> many of smalltalk's control structures. They're quite a bit more
> powerful than just anonymous functions.
>
> [self doWork] fork. "blocks do threading"
> [self condition] whileTrue:[self doWork] "blocks implement predicate
> logic"
> self list do:[:each | each doStuff] "and also act as anonymous
> functions"
> [self someError] on: Error do: [self someHandler] "blocks implement
> exception handling"
>
> Let's not sandbag blocks as "just" anonymous functions, they are so
> much more.
If they are so much more, they are so much more because we include a
representation in Smalltalk of the language implementation, and
"everything is an object" so we have to attach the functionality to
some class and BlockClosure is a good place to put it.
In some other language where not "everything is an object", the block
might simply be a parameter to some higher-order function
fork ([self doWork])
whileTrue([self condition], [self doWork])
foreach(self list, [:each | each doStuff])
etc
Thomas Gagne
> Small Question: What does the penguin mean to people outside the Linux
> community?
>
Both my kids have stuffed Tux toys and they love them. How would we
sell stuffed [|]?
Craig Latta
> could disguise the brackets, so that we could recognize them and yet
> they would be attractive to others. A sort of hidden meaning.
How about an "S" made from brackets? E.g.,
http://netjam.org/smalltalk/logo.gif
-C
--
Craig Latta
http://netjam.org/resume
Craig Latta
now, try again.
Mue
> I rather like [|] because it is a simple motif that can be used in many
> ways. It's easy to use in text and (as Esteban has shown) can look great
> when embellished as a graphic. The base symbol is monochrome which makes
> it flexible enough to be used in black and white or reversed or as a mask
> or embossed etc. [|] is simple and scalable enough to be added to other
> logos (like the Cincom Smalltalk or GemStone or Dolphin ones) much as one
> might add a © or ®.
>
> As with many logos, the "meaning" if any is not obvious - the important
> thing is that through consistent use the logo makes people think of
> Smalltalk when they see it. I find the story associated with [|] to be
> less contrived that most: It's just derived from a unique part of the
> Smalltalk syntax and looks symmetrical.
>
> Lastly I think that these things are impossible to reach a consensus on.
> Everyone has different ideas about what's a good logo and what's not. I
> feel that in these situations we need to nominate someone to pick
> something. Bob has taken on the job of heading up STIC and it seems
> reasonable to be that he should (after listening to all the debate) pick
> the logo he reckons is best from a STIC POV. I'm certainly glad it's not
> my call and I'd like to thank Bob for standing up for the almost
> inevitable flame fest.
>
> Of course if someone can come up with a logo that *everyone* agrees with,
> I think we should use that instead (and I bet Bob would too) ...
Hi Bruce,
normally I don't like to quote as much of the text like above, but I
completely agree. Logos have to be simple and easy to remember and to
use. [|] is really great for this, even if just insider will discover
its special meaning.
Please, don't let use take any complex or even martial logo with a
sword. We don't need a sword. The logo should be like Smalltalk -
beautiful and simple.
mue
Esteban A. Maringolo
> Well, a lot has been said (and done; see the graphical suggestions)
> about a Smalltalk logo. So let me wrap up (and please correct me if
> something is missing):
>
> - We need a textual representation
> - We need two graphical representations: b/w and color
> - The graphical representation must be scalable
> - It needs a "cuteness" effect
> - It should be easy to use for merchandising (don't forget all those
> meetings, research conferences,... where we want to give away mugs,
> keychains, toys,... or a "Smalltalk Store" for these goodies)
>
> As James Robertson already said: "What does the penguin <snip>"
>
> So I suggest we choose something similar in spirit, e.g. a squirrel:
>
> - Cute "small" animal
> - Starts with the letter S
> I believe right now way to much emphasis is put on the first item
> ("textual representation"); we should not forget the other items.
A mascot is one thing, and a isologo is other thing.
As the isologo I really like the simple square brackets representation,
it's simple, it complies with many rules for a simple isologo:
representable in 1 color, vector based, easy to reproduce.
And for the mascot, we can rebirth Polly Morphic, the Smalltalk
Chronicles mascot:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20021205025258/www.smalltalkchronicles.net/edition3-2/Pages/editorial.htm>
I want it to be polychromatic. It could be a chamaleon, but SuSE took it
first :).
I like this snip:
"Some of you may be curious about the parrot. Parrots aren't normally
considered a symbol of Smalltalk, but this one is. His name is Polly
Morphic, the Smalltalk parrot (thanks to Vassili Bykov for the name) and
he's our new mascot. He small, he talks, he wears the right colors, he
flies, what more could you ask?"
Also, we can refine the smalltalk globe, giving it a modern-stylish look.
As Bruce Badger stated before, is hard to get consensus on this,
everybody can say what they think, but given these conditions, a group
of designated people of the community/industry (the STIC in this case)
must take the decision.
Regards,
--
Esteban.
Thomas Gagne
the graphic already best associated with Smalltalk. Let's not waste all
that good marketing.
lope...@swbell.net
Rebirth of the parrot is a fantastic idea. With an emphsis on cute and
color full. Detail should be restrained.
First let me restate my position, that I don't care about a text
version of the logo what so ever. In text we can simply put
"Smalltalk" or "Powered by Smalltalk" or some other catch phrase.
With that said I think the Parrot can work in text. Now keep in mind I
am horrible at this, but I am sure somebody out there can do a good job
making a parrot head out of text.
__
_/ o)
_ /\)
)/
Of course I do think that we could have both a Mascot and Logo. But I
do think the Mascot is really your primary marketing tool.
Enjoy,
Chris Lopeman
Chris Uppal
> What ever happened to the balloon? Is it copyrighted? It's probably
> the graphic already best associated with Smalltalk. Let's not waste all
> that good marketing.
That's what I've been wondering also (although I do like Esteban's colourful
and simple rendering of the [] idea).
How many people who read this group have /not/ marvelled at the spendthrift
folly of some large organisation which has decided to spend <millions> on
rebranding itself ? How many of you can think of /any/ successful rebranding
exercises ?
And as for the squirrel, etc, I'll just say that it's bad enough trying to
persuade people of the virtues of a language with a /seriously/ uncool name,
without having a tacky "cute" mascot too.
-- chris
Paolo Bonzini
Thomas Gagne wrote:
> What ever happened to the balloon? Is it copyrighted? It's probably
> the graphic already best associated with Smalltalk. Let's not waste all
> that good marketing.
The balloon's qualities should not be taken for granted at all. It's
30 years old, and I heard somebody saying that it gives no good
impression -- on the contrary, it gives the idea of something that is
"just air". ;-)
The Smalltalk beach ball at
http://www.smalltalk.org/versions/DolphinSmalltalk.html is much better
for example. I don't know how much related it is/was to Dolphin? A
week ago is about the first time I saw it, and I found the link above
(which relates it to Dolphin) just with a Google Images search for
"smalltalk ball".
There are two kinds of logos: cute ones (like the penguin), and simple
ones (like the [|] that was proposed). The first ones can be very
successful, but are much more risky. They can be successful, they can
be neutral, they can kill a product. The first possibility is very
unlikely. I believe the penguin was very nice and appreciated, but
overall neutral -- Red Hat anyway uses the hat, SuSE uses the
chameleon, etc.; if Linux is not yet a consumer OS an audience that may
have been "tickled" by the penguin has not been reached yet. And for
sure the Java blue/red cup wants to be cute, but it's unlikely it
brought even more momentum to Java.
The third possibility is more likely than what most people would think.
Smalltalk has tried to kill itself enough in the past, that we do not
want to risk getting it even worse. We may be cool programmers, cool
class library designers, but please let's keep it simple and don't get
muddled in swords and other tries to do what is *not* our job.
Paolo
Isaac Gouy
Who's the intended audience?
I agree that the pun-laden Java cup probably didn't appeal to potential
Java developers (maybe it had some appeal to managers and marketeers).
I think Duke had enormous appeal to potential Java developers, because
it embodied the excitement that Java could bring to the web.
http://java.sun.com/features/1999/05/duke.html
What problem is Smalltalk the solution for? What exciting future opens
up with Smalltalk?
Answer that first and then create a logo which embodies that feeling.
Joachim Tuchel
I simply don't understand this whole thread. I agree that getting a logo
out there that is on every T-Shirt, Mug and most of all in the brains of
decision makers...
But what was wrong about the balloon?
Why do we need a new logo every two years or so? There were some very
pretty balloon-based logos created some years ago.
It won't help, IMO, to have a squirrel, cameleon, horse, parrot or
whatever for whatever reason, when the original very iconic symbol for
Smalltalk was and still is a colourful, friendly looking balloon. It has
a very nice story and a very nice meaning in the context of the byte
magazine title (you know, the castle on the island and that stuff). Why
invent something new?
And BTW, A steaming coffee cup is also not very sympathic or neat, it
simply is widely known.
The real problem here is not the cuteness level of a logo but the degree
to which it is widespread. The balloon has some potential: It has been
used over two decades, it is well-known in the Smalltalk world, and it
can be drawn in very nice ways.
why not revive one of the balloon logos and spread it? Why try to spread
a new one?
Joachim
Paolo Bonzini
> whatever for whatever reason, when the original very iconic symbol for
> Smalltalk was and still is a colourful, friendly looking balloon. It has
> a very nice story and a very nice meaning in the context of the byte
> magazine title (you know, the castle on the island and that stuff). Why
> invent something new?
Because I don't think there is *any* consensus that the balloon is neat
(in the widest possible sense, as in: conveys any good idea).
> And BTW, A steaming coffee cup is also not very sympathic or neat, it
> simply is widely known.
Yes, but it needs not be neat. It is simply attached to something that
is already widely used. Smalltalk is not.
Paolo
beck...@btinternet.com
+1
I agree. The problem isn' the logo. The problem is awareness, and to
solve that problem will require money IMO, and lots of it.
For example, Dolphin Smalltalk 6 looks great, yet I've seen no reviews
in the main stream IT media. Most developer forums have corners for
Java, C++, C# and recently Ruby, but no Smalltalk corner. It is almost
as though Smalltalk was never a hugely successful commercial language.
In the general IT media I come across more references to Cobol then I
do to Smalltalk. I just don't think that the remaining commercial
Smalltalk vendors can compete with the massive marketing budgets of
companies like Sun, IBM, Microsoft etc.
I program Java by day and most Java programmers have barely heard of
Smalltalk. They have all heard of Ruby and Rails though. IMO Ruby is a
poor mans Smalltalk, so what are the Ruby people doing right?
Perhaps Smalltalk needs a killer app. like Rails. How is Seaside
adoption doing? Maybe Croquet will prove to be the killer app for
Smalltalk, who knows.
Hopefully Ruby will shake things up a bit, and mainstream C++/C# and
Java programmers will become more open to exploring alternatives.
Last point, is that if Mohammed won't come to the mountain then perhaps
the mountain needs to come a little closer to Mohammed. Strongtalk
seems to take this approach and as a part time Smalltalker I find that
it works (at least for me). You can browse all of a class at once and
you can work in pretty much the same way as you do with Java. Oh yes
and there is "type safety" if you really feel you need it :^) . A
shame that Sun buried it!
Paul.
Paul.
J.F. Rick
>Smalltalk. They have all heard of Ruby and Rails though. IMO Ruby is a
>poor mans Smalltalk, so what are the Ruby people doing right?
Hmm. Maybe we can ask Ruby to change their slogan:
Ruby - the best poor man's Smalltalk yet
Of course, Smalltalk is not nearly as expensive as it once was, so maybe
the poor man's thing is misleading.
Peace and Luck!
Jeff
--
"They bought and sold it all; it's gone. They've taken it and built O-
a mall. And, now, they're playing your song." --Hole (Celebrity Skin) 7
gregarican
> IMO Ruby is a
> poor mans Smalltalk, so what are the Ruby people doing right?
This is an oversimplication/broad generalization at best. As someone
who has coded in both languages I can _kind of_ see where you are
coming from. But to me Ruby was born more out an attempt to build a
cleaner, more elegant, and more effective OO language than Perl. Yes,
it borrows certain elements from Smalltalk, such as the bracketed
blocks, but I don't think the spirit of the language was to be some
Smalltalk knock-off. It's kind of like when folks claim that Java is a
poor man's Smalltalk. Okay, there's built in GC, a VM, and some other
elements of Smalltalk in Java but it seems born out of a need to make a
truer OO implementation of C++. At least the overall syntax is more
akin to C++ than Smalltalk.
As for what the Ruby people are doing right, I would say that their
community is typically friendly, interactive, and helpful. Newbies can
easily pick up the language since it doesn't take a long time to sink
in. Smalltalk was something that took me about a month to play around
in before I finally "got it." Once I did then I understood how folks
could use it and be so productive. But novice programmers might not be
as patient and their instant gratification plays into things.
Then it's also a question of timing. When some "killer app" comes out
in a language and gets some press then out comes the bandwagon.
Personally I think that Seaside (esp. with the Scriptaculous AJAX
libraries) is a lot slicker and more powerful of a web framework than
Rails. I have written a couple of production apps for my company using
Rails as a test run at using the framework. The barebones first blush
went quickly, but things not boilerplate were tough to fit in later on.
Plus in all fairness, the framework is relatively new and still isn't
mature and "ready for primetime."
I submitted an article to Slashdot a few weeks ago pointing out how
other web frameworks and Web 2.0-type apps are out there that are
relatively unknown and are worthy of notice. Specifically, Seaside and
DabbleDB. Both impress the hell out of me. The article submission was
rejected within an hour. Sad.
Another thing about Ruby and why it might be gaining more popularity is
by nature their community seems to "evangelical." Matz was a Mormon
missionary, if I am not mistaken, and their community seems to preach
the gospel to convert folks to their language of choice. This spreading
the word can't hurt. I've read articles and postings from Smalltalk
folks who consider Smalltalk their "secret weapon." I would avoid that
mindset like the plague :-)
Isaac Gouy
Let me encourage you to submit the article elsewhere - try DDJ, if
there's a Linux slant try a Linux journal, even publish on your own
website and publicize on reddit
Donald MacQueen
I have the [|] logo embroidered on all the shirts I wear to work. Over the
years, I have told (mostly non-technical) people what it means (but only
when they ask) and afterwards they usually look at me like I'm nuts.
We had a Halloween party at work last week and two guys independently came
up with the idea of putting this logo on their shirts and coming as me.
Everyone thought it was hilarious; I was flattered.
I think it's a cool logo, but it is kind of esoteric.
Thanks to Bob for doing this.
Donald