Go's New Brand(blog.golang.org)
blog.golang.org
Go's New Brand
https://blog.golang.org/go-brand
300 comments
The logo is awful.
- it ham-fistedly plays on the name Go (look, the logo is "going"...)
- it is not opinionated (it conforms seamlessly to contemporary corporate logo design, it looks like stock art)
- it does not repay sustained attention
Go is a brutalist language. Clean lines, no frills, lots of power, close enough to the metal. I want monotype, exposed beams and concrete, RTFM, no ugly movement lines.
I would actually rather they had taken a photo of the word "Go" written in concrete.
And honestly, I don't care about any of these things, it's just window dressing on a very solid programming tool. It's frustrating when the miss is that obvious, though. Whoever pushed this through was clearly very risk averse, rushed, or both.
- it ham-fistedly plays on the name Go (look, the logo is "going"...)
- it is not opinionated (it conforms seamlessly to contemporary corporate logo design, it looks like stock art)
- it does not repay sustained attention
Go is a brutalist language. Clean lines, no frills, lots of power, close enough to the metal. I want monotype, exposed beams and concrete, RTFM, no ugly movement lines.
I would actually rather they had taken a photo of the word "Go" written in concrete.
And honestly, I don't care about any of these things, it's just window dressing on a very solid programming tool. It's frustrating when the miss is that obvious, though. Whoever pushed this through was clearly very risk averse, rushed, or both.
The logo also appears to have lifted several elements from the podcast Jordan, Jesse, Go [1]. The font is almost identical. It has the white text on almost the exact same shade of blue. It has the three lines trailing part of the logo.
EDIT: Here [2] are the two logos side by side. The number of similarities would make this one hell of a coincidence.
[1] - http://www.maximumfun.org/shows/jordan-jesse-go
[2] - https://i.imgur.com/0KkdFR1.png
EDIT: Here [2] are the two logos side by side. The number of similarities would make this one hell of a coincidence.
[1] - http://www.maximumfun.org/shows/jordan-jesse-go
[2] - https://i.imgur.com/0KkdFR1.png
Jordan, Jesse, Go! also immediately came to my mind when I saw these new logos. Based on the visual similarities, it seems the designer was probably inspired by the JJGO logo. This also reminded me that there was already an existing language named "Go!" when golang was released. Maybe they should add the exclamation point now to go for the full JJGO look.
I don’t think there’s enough evidence that they’re inspired by each other.
movement lines aren’t original. they’re a classic visual archetype, commonly used to convey movement in static images. they exist in every comic book ever printed.
Sans-serif fonts in all caps consisting of two circular letters “G”and “O” can look similar, depending on who’s looking
no car
movement lines aren’t original. they’re a classic visual archetype, commonly used to convey movement in static images. they exist in every comic book ever printed.
Sans-serif fonts in all caps consisting of two circular letters “G”and “O” can look similar, depending on who’s looking
no car
>they’re inspired by each other.
That is unfortunate phrasing. The Jordan, Jesse, Go logo has been used for roughly a decade and the podcast is older than the Go language. There is only one possible direction that any inspiration could have flowed.
Any one or two of these specific details can be explained away, but at a certain point the number of coincidence start to indicate that they are not in fact coincidences.
That is unfortunate phrasing. The Jordan, Jesse, Go logo has been used for roughly a decade and the podcast is older than the Go language. There is only one possible direction that any inspiration could have flowed.
Any one or two of these specific details can be explained away, but at a certain point the number of coincidence start to indicate that they are not in fact coincidences.
You’d have to get it from the artist to be sure.
But there is not enough evidence here, to suggest that the new go logo lifted elements from that other logo.
Motion lines are not a coincidence they are a common solution to the problem of conveying motion in static imagery. It’s as common as using a cup when the problem being addressed is how to drink coffee.
A sans-serif word-mark is also not unique. It’s trendy. Everyone’s doing it. The major difference between the old google logo and the current one was the removal of serifs. For a company Google’s size that’s one expensive redesign just to remove serifs, since they had to get it re-printed on everything such as cars, signs, business cards, letterhead, clothing, etc. Going with a sans-serif is not an original design choice, it’s a trendy and safe one. And sans serif texts tend to look like each other in all caps with circular letters.
Ehh. I’m trying but I’m not seeing any peculiar elements that the two logos share, including the combination of public domain design choices, to the extent that would suggest one lifted from the other.
But there is not enough evidence here, to suggest that the new go logo lifted elements from that other logo.
Motion lines are not a coincidence they are a common solution to the problem of conveying motion in static imagery. It’s as common as using a cup when the problem being addressed is how to drink coffee.
A sans-serif word-mark is also not unique. It’s trendy. Everyone’s doing it. The major difference between the old google logo and the current one was the removal of serifs. For a company Google’s size that’s one expensive redesign just to remove serifs, since they had to get it re-printed on everything such as cars, signs, business cards, letterhead, clothing, etc. Going with a sans-serif is not an original design choice, it’s a trendy and safe one. And sans serif texts tend to look like each other in all caps with circular letters.
Ehh. I’m trying but I’m not seeing any peculiar elements that the two logos share, including the combination of public domain design choices, to the extent that would suggest one lifted from the other.
Um, no. The updated Go logo is a refresh of the original Go logo when the language was first introduced.
https://blog.golang.org/gopher/logo.png
https://blog.golang.org/gopher/logo.png
Oddly enough I think I prefer that logo to the new branding
Ha ha, I tend to agree.
In fact, a font that looked like steel or concrete might be good. Wonder if there is one. If so, they could have made the logo to be just the word Go (as I spelled it as regards to case) in that font. Silvery steel font on a gray or black background, or some similar combination.
Even a font / image / logo signifying a rugged wood (mahogany or some hardwood?) in some way might have been a good one. Signifying the Go philosophy - a no-frills, just-get-the-work done-kind of language.
Just thinking aloud ... :)
In fact, a font that looked like steel or concrete might be good. Wonder if there is one. If so, they could have made the logo to be just the word Go (as I spelled it as regards to case) in that font. Silvery steel font on a gray or black background, or some similar combination.
Even a font / image / logo signifying a rugged wood (mahogany or some hardwood?) in some way might have been a good one. Signifying the Go philosophy - a no-frills, just-get-the-work done-kind of language.
Just thinking aloud ... :)
Perhaps something like the Google Authenticator logo? https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=google+authenticator+lo...
Incidentally, I viewed your above URL for Google Authenticator logo images in mobile a while earlier (after being able to view it fine - with all the images - on desktop PC). And on mobile (Android), amusingly, it seems like Chrome has done its usual optimization of heavy pages (by googleweblight.com or similar means), which often helps save bandwidth and speeds the rendering time, but this time, it resulted in it optimizing out all the images that should show up on that page :) Not a single image shows up, I just get the header and footer of the page. If anyone from Google is reading this, please pass on the info to the relevant team, so they can look into this.
That's kinda hilarious but altogether probably unsurprising. With Android and Chrome using Google as the default search, I suspect the number of people who test against Bing Image Search is a small quantity. :/
Ha, yes, though it is not exactly the same as what I was visualizing (my idea was minus the rivets), it does look good.
Nice, thanks.
Nice, thanks.
I'd agree here. It's like they tried to make the new branding as generic as they possibly could.
I liked the simple, basic site that Go has always used. It seems inevitable that they'll redo the site, to include megabytes of JavaScript for features that nobody wants, like hijacked scrolling. (The site[0] for the design agency they talk about loads about 3 MB. Almost none of it is images. The site loads all that to display approximately ten words.)
Also,
>The circular shape of the letters hints at the eyes of the Go gopher, creating a familiar shape and allowing the mark and the mascot to pair well together.
If by "pairing well together", you mean not going together in any way, then yes.
[0]: http://within.us/
I liked the simple, basic site that Go has always used. It seems inevitable that they'll redo the site, to include megabytes of JavaScript for features that nobody wants, like hijacked scrolling. (The site[0] for the design agency they talk about loads about 3 MB. Almost none of it is images. The site loads all that to display approximately ten words.)
Also,
>The circular shape of the letters hints at the eyes of the Go gopher, creating a familiar shape and allowing the mark and the mascot to pair well together.
If by "pairing well together", you mean not going together in any way, then yes.
[0]: http://within.us/
Jesus christ that site is bad.
It's like they tried to tick every box in the "obnoxious and annoying" category:
* It's inexplicably large
* It's slow af
* Scroll hijacking
* back button hijacking
* There's elements that appear when I scroll, but they disappear so you don't actually appear to be able to look them any more than in passing. (Notably the colourful logos for Google and Priceline).
* Did I mention it's slow? Scrolling is slow. Clicking on things is slow. Animations are slow.
* ~Half the code isn't even minified and a coworker pointed out that some of it doesn't appear to even be used.~ Nevermind, some of it does appear to be minified/resized.
* 3.8+ Megabytes of JS, really? Really really? Why?
It's like they tried to tick every box in the "obnoxious and annoying" category:
* It's inexplicably large
* It's slow af
* Scroll hijacking
* back button hijacking
* There's elements that appear when I scroll, but they disappear so you don't actually appear to be able to look them any more than in passing. (Notably the colourful logos for Google and Priceline).
* Did I mention it's slow? Scrolling is slow. Clicking on things is slow. Animations are slow.
* ~Half the code isn't even minified and a coworker pointed out that some of it doesn't appear to even be used.~ Nevermind, some of it does appear to be minified/resized.
* 3.8+ Megabytes of JS, really? Really really? Why?
I am so utterly infuriated at their incompetence. How could they not see these obvious points? I hope they're reading because they ruined the face of an otherwise, very cool programming language project in our times.
I like the part where dragging on my phone scrolls the page the opposite of the direction I'm dragging.
I think this happens when I drag one direction, then change my mind and drag the other, and the site (sorry, "app") forgets to forget my previous drag.
I think this happens when I drag one direction, then change my mind and drag the other, and the site (sorry, "app") forgets to forget my previous drag.
It doesn't even have a favicon!
Let's all send angry emails to them
I visited the website. It just shows a big W: https://kek.gg/i/78bwZ-.png
You've got to keep scrolling. It'll take a while.
You're not missing that much, though, since there are quite literally (yes, I counted) fifteen words on the entire home page.
You're not missing that much, though, since there are quite literally (yes, I counted) fifteen words on the entire home page.
[deleted]
The proposal makes me sad as well.
As someone who uses Go everyday -- professionally and personally -- Go's branding was always simple and fun, which (to me) was reflected in the language itself. The new proposal is trendy, but Go was never about being trendy -- Go as a language explicitly rejects so many trendy features from other languages. Go to me is simple, fast, fun, and doesn't change a whole lot (a very good thing).
Most of the Gophers I know, myself included, are a little weird and different -- in a good way. So was the branding. I liked that... and I'm going to miss that.
As someone who uses Go everyday -- professionally and personally -- Go's branding was always simple and fun, which (to me) was reflected in the language itself. The new proposal is trendy, but Go was never about being trendy -- Go as a language explicitly rejects so many trendy features from other languages. Go to me is simple, fast, fun, and doesn't change a whole lot (a very good thing).
Most of the Gophers I know, myself included, are a little weird and different -- in a good way. So was the branding. I liked that... and I'm going to miss that.
Look at it this way, Google's making a commercial statement with this, that they think Go is important enough for them to brand.
It's like Duke and Java -- Duke still exists as a mascot. I suspect the gopher will be around for a long time to come. If anything this is a harbinger of Go becoming more mainstream than it is already (think TIOBE top-10).
It's like Duke and Java -- Duke still exists as a mascot. I suspect the gopher will be around for a long time to come. If anything this is a harbinger of Go becoming more mainstream than it is already (think TIOBE top-10).
No, this all started with an email to UX/design of "I want a professionally designed slide deck for this talk I am giving" and they sent it off to an agency.
There is no way self respecting Googlers were involved in this shit show.
There is no way self respecting Googlers were involved in this shit show.
Somehow I think that the coffee cup is better than running letters.
>But for Go, this logo is the one that I acknowledge:
> https://blog.golang.org/gopher/logo.png
Check the link again. They pulled the rug out from under you.
> https://blog.golang.org/gopher/logo.png
Check the link again. They pulled the rug out from under you.
I think you might have been confused by the fact that the new logo is basically just a polished-up version of the original one. Were you expecting the gopher at that URL?
>Were you expecting the gopher at that URL
Yes, I was expecting the gopher, especially because of the URL's path including the word gopher. Looking at the wayback machine shows you're right, this is the same picture that's been at that URL for years. I just always thought of the gopher as their logo, didn't realize there was another logo they used (I don't use Go so not too familiar with it).
Yes, I was expecting the gopher, especially because of the URL's path including the word gopher. Looking at the wayback machine shows you're right, this is the same picture that's been at that URL for years. I just always thought of the gopher as their logo, didn't realize there was another logo they used (I don't use Go so not too familiar with it).
The link still refers to the old logo for me.
Your first paragraph immediately reminded me of the logo/CI transition for one of Germany's largest hospital operators, "Helios" (subsidiary of Fresenius):
"old" logo (easily recognizable as a medical institution, easily discernible "H" for "Helios"):
http://www.medical-network-hessen.de/images/News/Helios_Klin...
"new" logo ("H" not clearly discernable in the two green blobs, no reference to medicine at all):
https://www.helios-gesundheit.de/fileadmin/_processed_/d/4/c...
All in all, from quite good to meh.
"old" logo (easily recognizable as a medical institution, easily discernible "H" for "Helios"):
http://www.medical-network-hessen.de/images/News/Helios_Klin...
"new" logo ("H" not clearly discernable in the two green blobs, no reference to medicine at all):
https://www.helios-gesundheit.de/fileadmin/_processed_/d/4/c...
All in all, from quite good to meh.
> "H" not clearly discernable in the two green blobs, no reference to medicine at all
I've never seen either of these logos before, but in the new one I immediately see the "H" formed by the white space between the two "green blobs", which to me look like "healing hands" and which I take as a medical reference (although TBH they do make me think "chiropractor" rather than "doctor"). I don't think the new one is great, but I much prefer it to the old one, which looks like a very half-assed attempt to combine an H with the Rod of Asclepius. It's like they weren't even trying.
I've never seen either of these logos before, but in the new one I immediately see the "H" formed by the white space between the two "green blobs", which to me look like "healing hands" and which I take as a medical reference (although TBH they do make me think "chiropractor" rather than "doctor"). I don't think the new one is great, but I much prefer it to the old one, which looks like a very half-assed attempt to combine an H with the Rod of Asclepius. It's like they weren't even trying.
What I meant to say is that the old one is a logo that (without any text or anything) practically screams "hospital"/"medical institution" to anyone looking at it for the first time, while the new one is rather ambiguous, especially if you have no context for it.
the logo is the opposite of timeless, trying to grasp currently oh so hip and pop retro aesthetic
> The identity is so completely soulless, and the logo is the opposite of timeless
So true. When I look at the new logo, it reminds me of Adidas in the 1980s.
So true. When I look at the new logo, it reminds me of Adidas in the 1980s.
unrelated to this thread...
but Adidas had plenty of soul in the 80s. RunDMC wrote an anthem specifically about the brand [0], which completely changed the Hip Hop's relationship w/ commerce.
[0] — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=virlWcB_G-E
but Adidas had plenty of soul in the 80s. RunDMC wrote an anthem specifically about the brand [0], which completely changed the Hip Hop's relationship w/ commerce.
[0] — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=virlWcB_G-E
> I could imagine it working well for something else
this sums up why this new brand isn't good.
this sums up why this new brand isn't good.
This is true of ANY good logo before it gets traction.
There's nothing special about the Apple logo (or Apple as the name of a corporate name), for example. I mean, seriously, it's a clip art apple with a bit out of it.
What makes it a great logo is everything in your head and heart that is associated, good or bad, with that image.
There's nothing special about the Apple logo (or Apple as the name of a corporate name), for example. I mean, seriously, it's a clip art apple with a bit out of it.
What makes it a great logo is everything in your head and heart that is associated, good or bad, with that image.
I didn't even know Go had a logo, so long as they aren't touching the Gopher I honestly don't care.
Ya, same here. To me, the gopher was the logo - I didn't even know if they had a separate logo or not, and never bothered. I mean, when you have one like the gopher, why do you need anything else?
Gopher mascot and no logo was fine. I do see - I cannot call it a trend, but multiple individual instances - of companies going from a better logo / brand image to a sometimes worse one (this is purely subjective opinion on my part, of course, not based on any objective criteria at all).
Another example is Google's current logo of the company name. I don't find it attractive - flat and sort of dull. But the one they had earlier for a long time, was attractive, the colors sort of seemed to gleam or sparkle, and the overall effect was pleasing, even though the colors were the sort of primary colors you find in the kindergarten.
Note: All this said just as a guy who has no UI design expertise at all, just speaking as a layman to that field.
Another example is Google's current logo of the company name. I don't find it attractive - flat and sort of dull. But the one they had earlier for a long time, was attractive, the colors sort of seemed to gleam or sparkle, and the overall effect was pleasing, even though the colors were the sort of primary colors you find in the kindergarten.
Note: All this said just as a guy who has no UI design expertise at all, just speaking as a layman to that field.
Relevant: golang-nuts mailing list discussion from 2011 where someone claimed the logo lacked "professionalism" and was thoroughly mocked for it (including by a younger, more juvenile yours truly).
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/JZ-gUROf...
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/JZ-gUROf...
[deleted]
Caveat: I'm a software developer who's worked in agencies for half of my 20 year career. A few thoughts:
1. Branding is hard: everybody things they can do it. Creative direction and art direction are really, really hard. If you haven't seen the "Make my logo bigger cream" video, go watch it, and then have some grace with the Go team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgcX0y1Nzhs
2. A brand is WAY more than a logo. I get that's the first thing you grab, but the logo is just the identify of the brand. If you think it's all creative mumbo jumbo, I encourage you to go read Aaker's "Building Strong Brands" https://www.amazon.com/Building-Strong-Brands-David-Aaker/dp...
Go read the Brand Guide twice before you start throwing darts. https://storage.googleapis.com/golang-assets/go-brand-book-v...
Having seen 100s of these over the years, this is excellent work from people who honestly care. It also addresses almost every single negative comment on this thread.
I also like how they call out explicitely "The gopher is not a logo" which is entirely true. I think it's more of a "lovemark" (see https://www.amazon.com/Lovemarks-Kevin-Roberts/dp/157687270X)
It's not my favorite logo, but it's definitely on brand.
If the go team is reading this: it might help if you lead with the mark and the mascot together. I think the logo in isolation is what's generating the strong reaction.
1. Branding is hard: everybody things they can do it. Creative direction and art direction are really, really hard. If you haven't seen the "Make my logo bigger cream" video, go watch it, and then have some grace with the Go team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgcX0y1Nzhs
2. A brand is WAY more than a logo. I get that's the first thing you grab, but the logo is just the identify of the brand. If you think it's all creative mumbo jumbo, I encourage you to go read Aaker's "Building Strong Brands" https://www.amazon.com/Building-Strong-Brands-David-Aaker/dp...
Go read the Brand Guide twice before you start throwing darts. https://storage.googleapis.com/golang-assets/go-brand-book-v...
Having seen 100s of these over the years, this is excellent work from people who honestly care. It also addresses almost every single negative comment on this thread.
I also like how they call out explicitely "The gopher is not a logo" which is entirely true. I think it's more of a "lovemark" (see https://www.amazon.com/Lovemarks-Kevin-Roberts/dp/157687270X)
It's not my favorite logo, but it's definitely on brand.
If the go team is reading this: it might help if you lead with the mark and the mascot together. I think the logo in isolation is what's generating the strong reaction.
Apologies, but I disagree with basically everything you're saying here.
Branding isn't hard; forcing a constructed brand is hard. That's the real source of friction here.
A brand might be way more than a logo, but THIS brand is not. That logo is literally the only thing this design agency contributed at all. Even the colors were already in use around the project. If the difference between "a brand" and "a logo" is "ten pages of marketspeak" then I'm even less convinced that branding is hard.
I read the "brand guide." It's exactly what I expect from a professional design firm: meaningless noise, carefully typeset. The entirety of section 1 is a PR quickref chart, of no interest or use to anyone but project managers dealing with micromanaging executives. Section 2.0 is breathless pseudo-art crap and some trademark defense. 2.1 contains pointless backstory for fonts that are firmly in the "Google already had lying around" category. Finally, the cartoon gets its own section, expressly to head off the whining from the old guard.
I've also seen a ton of this crap over the years, and none of it has ever made the slightest bit of difference. This is exactly the kind of time-and-money-wasting that occurs when some facet of management has gone off the rails. Let's hope the derelict in question is somewhere in marketing, and unable to affect the quality of the actual technology in question.
As for the actual logo, I don't have an opinion about it. I don't think there's anything there to have an opinion about. I've never been a big fan of the gopher cartoon, but at least it had some character, which likely comes from the talent of a real artist.
Branding isn't hard; forcing a constructed brand is hard. That's the real source of friction here.
A brand might be way more than a logo, but THIS brand is not. That logo is literally the only thing this design agency contributed at all. Even the colors were already in use around the project. If the difference between "a brand" and "a logo" is "ten pages of marketspeak" then I'm even less convinced that branding is hard.
I read the "brand guide." It's exactly what I expect from a professional design firm: meaningless noise, carefully typeset. The entirety of section 1 is a PR quickref chart, of no interest or use to anyone but project managers dealing with micromanaging executives. Section 2.0 is breathless pseudo-art crap and some trademark defense. 2.1 contains pointless backstory for fonts that are firmly in the "Google already had lying around" category. Finally, the cartoon gets its own section, expressly to head off the whining from the old guard.
I've also seen a ton of this crap over the years, and none of it has ever made the slightest bit of difference. This is exactly the kind of time-and-money-wasting that occurs when some facet of management has gone off the rails. Let's hope the derelict in question is somewhere in marketing, and unable to affect the quality of the actual technology in question.
As for the actual logo, I don't have an opinion about it. I don't think there's anything there to have an opinion about. I've never been a big fan of the gopher cartoon, but at least it had some character, which likely comes from the talent of a real artist.
> Branding isn't hard; forcing a constructed brand is hard. That's the real source of friction here.
Let's agree to disagree. I've been involved in dozens of branding processes. None of them were easy, from the strategy to the creative to the execution.
If the agency did their job, the brand guide _should_ feel obvious. That's how you know it's on brand.
<rant>I find this sort of comment very condescending to designers. I'n not a designer, but I've managed them. Good design is hard. Good creative is hard. Good branding is hard. This was excellent work, and if you see "marketspeak" you need to re-evaluate what good creative work looks like.</rant>
Let's agree to disagree. I've been involved in dozens of branding processes. None of them were easy, from the strategy to the creative to the execution.
If the agency did their job, the brand guide _should_ feel obvious. That's how you know it's on brand.
<rant>I find this sort of comment very condescending to designers. I'n not a designer, but I've managed them. Good design is hard. Good creative is hard. Good branding is hard. This was excellent work, and if you see "marketspeak" you need to re-evaluate what good creative work looks like.</rant>
Marketspeak is marketspeak because it lacks honesty and authenticity.
It's like "artist's statements" that are written so impenetrably that it's impossible for anyone to understand what the artist actually meant to do with the artwork. And that's deliberate, because of where the art world has got now.
If the designers of this shitshow were honest in their statement then it'd be "we made it look like this because it was the easiest and simplest method of getting it past the mass of middle-managers who got to veto the creative without contributing any positive ideas themselves. The brief was to be as inoffensive and non-controversial as possible".
As another commenter said, Go is brutalist. The gopher never quite suited it. But at least it was fun and original and different. But this... this is shite.
It's like "artist's statements" that are written so impenetrably that it's impossible for anyone to understand what the artist actually meant to do with the artwork. And that's deliberate, because of where the art world has got now.
If the designers of this shitshow were honest in their statement then it'd be "we made it look like this because it was the easiest and simplest method of getting it past the mass of middle-managers who got to veto the creative without contributing any positive ideas themselves. The brief was to be as inoffensive and non-controversial as possible".
As another commenter said, Go is brutalist. The gopher never quite suited it. But at least it was fun and original and different. But this... this is shite.
> I read the "brand guide." It's exactly what I expect from a professional design firm: meaningless noise, carefully typeset.
It's not helping the discussion to disregard an entire profession. Re-read what you wrote; it is _extremely_ heavily biased, angry venting at some corporate construct you've invented.
> at least it had some character, which likely comes from the talent of a real artist.
This is just mean.
It's not helping the discussion to disregard an entire profession. Re-read what you wrote; it is _extremely_ heavily biased, angry venting at some corporate construct you've invented.
> at least it had some character, which likely comes from the talent of a real artist.
This is just mean.
"You don't like it because you just don't know how goshdarn hard it all is" isn't a particularly useful starting point. Some of us do know how hard it can be, and some of us know when it's hard because the people doing the work don't have anything positive to contribute.
I am familiar with what I wrote: I wrote it. I'm not biased against anything; my opinions come from direct experience with dozens of design firms over many years. In-house design teams are, for example, a totally different and more positive approach. Every time you farm the job out you get junk, and this example is no exception. I'm baffled as to why this got farmed out at all -- is there no design team within Google qualified to typeset a two-letter logo based on an existing logo?
As for being "just mean," to whom am I being mean? The faceless entities who picked six colors and three corporate-approved fonts and then wrote a twenty-page document inventing reasons they did the obvious? Guilty as charged, I guess.
I am familiar with what I wrote: I wrote it. I'm not biased against anything; my opinions come from direct experience with dozens of design firms over many years. In-house design teams are, for example, a totally different and more positive approach. Every time you farm the job out you get junk, and this example is no exception. I'm baffled as to why this got farmed out at all -- is there no design team within Google qualified to typeset a two-letter logo based on an existing logo?
As for being "just mean," to whom am I being mean? The faceless entities who picked six colors and three corporate-approved fonts and then wrote a twenty-page document inventing reasons they did the obvious? Guilty as charged, I guess.
It's because branding is so dashed hard. And because it must capture the soul of the product. Its raison d'etre. That makes it so easy to miss the mark. It's only allotted 100ms of human response time to make a user fall in love.
And I do believe this rebrand is a miss. Nothing about it communicates Go's unique personality. Or deep tradition.
Compare to the incomparable Paula Scher's work at Pentagram. I'll single out the rebrand for MIT Media Lab. About as good as it gets. Mapping perfectly to the myriad bespoke research programs in everything from "affective computing" to "soft robots":
https://www.pentagram.com/work/mit-media-lab/story
In any event, I love that this turned into such a lively discussion here. We should have more of these live critiques. The value of this kind of feedback is amazing ;)
And I do believe this rebrand is a miss. Nothing about it communicates Go's unique personality. Or deep tradition.
Compare to the incomparable Paula Scher's work at Pentagram. I'll single out the rebrand for MIT Media Lab. About as good as it gets. Mapping perfectly to the myriad bespoke research programs in everything from "affective computing" to "soft robots":
https://www.pentagram.com/work/mit-media-lab/story
In any event, I love that this turned into such a lively discussion here. We should have more of these live critiques. The value of this kind of feedback is amazing ;)
My experience is pretty much the same as yours, and I largely agree with everything you've said.
One thing I'll add is that one of the reasons why branding is hard is because there is often a surprisingly large disconnect between how users perceive a brand/product, and how the creators perceive it.
My favourite approach to coming up with a brand structure is to go through archetypes with both the client and a subset of users. Archetypes are a great way to get the initial planning of brand perception down, but a lot of designers will do it purely with the client. Nearly every time I've had the fortune to work at an agency that does it for both sides, the perception of the brand has been very different.
I think the agency have done a good job, but I do wonder whether they took the time to see how users perceive the Go language. Based on the comments on here, my guess is that they didn't.
https://smashingideas.com/behavioral-archetypes/
One thing I'll add is that one of the reasons why branding is hard is because there is often a surprisingly large disconnect between how users perceive a brand/product, and how the creators perceive it.
My favourite approach to coming up with a brand structure is to go through archetypes with both the client and a subset of users. Archetypes are a great way to get the initial planning of brand perception down, but a lot of designers will do it purely with the client. Nearly every time I've had the fortune to work at an agency that does it for both sides, the perception of the brand has been very different.
I think the agency have done a good job, but I do wonder whether they took the time to see how users perceive the Go language. Based on the comments on here, my guess is that they didn't.
https://smashingideas.com/behavioral-archetypes/
Thanks for taking the time to post all those informative links. Usually these kinds of discussions end up being people expressing what they like or dislike about the re-brand.
I'd suggest that a re-brand that didn't provoke a strong reaction was a waste of time.
I'd suggest that a re-brand that didn't provoke a strong reaction was a waste of time.
I'm a rare breed of designer + developer with 20 years of experience and I've been involved in branding projects with marketing agencies too. I agree, branding is hard, pleasing humans is hard.
In the case of Go I think both the branding and the logo are a mistake, objectively speaking.
I get that in the briefing they conveyed to the designers the idea that Go is a fun programming language, but both the client and the designers completely ignored the target audience. Developers, specially Go developers, care about reliability, performance, convenience, stability, etc. None of these characteristics is expressed in the brand other than "fun" above anything else.
Subjectively speaking I have a strong reaction against the brand. I'd rather have the old ugly gopher than this which I can't identify or empathize with in any way.
In the case of Go I think both the branding and the logo are a mistake, objectively speaking.
I get that in the briefing they conveyed to the designers the idea that Go is a fun programming language, but both the client and the designers completely ignored the target audience. Developers, specially Go developers, care about reliability, performance, convenience, stability, etc. None of these characteristics is expressed in the brand other than "fun" above anything else.
Subjectively speaking I have a strong reaction against the brand. I'd rather have the old ugly gopher than this which I can't identify or empathize with in any way.
> A brand is WAY more than a logo.
I thought it was super-interesting they used the word 'brand' instead of 'branding'.
As if a brand ("what people say about you when you're not listening") could be conjured from a logo and set of colours.
I thought it was super-interesting they used the word 'brand' instead of 'branding'.
As if a brand ("what people say about you when you're not listening") could be conjured from a logo and set of colours.
What is the 'Make my logo bigger cream' video satirising? Is it a common reaction from clients of design agencies to ask for the logo to be bigger?
It is (in my experience), although that's not the point.
They are satirising how clients tend to destroy good designs with bad feedback.
They are satirising how clients tend to destroy good designs with bad feedback.
Maybe the clients know more than the designers about what their requirements are?
Sure, you would hope so.
The problem is all in communication:
1. Communicating the requirements with enough clarity to enable the designer to translate those requirements into creative.
2. Communicating constructive feedback to adjust the creative.
The most productive exchanges are when the client understands the creative process.
The problem is all in communication:
1. Communicating the requirements with enough clarity to enable the designer to translate those requirements into creative.
2. Communicating constructive feedback to adjust the creative.
The most productive exchanges are when the client understands the creative process.
I see that "Brand Guide" as style over substance personified:
> Roboto is a contemporary sans serif typeface designed for readability.
That's an oxymoron: "sans serif typeface designed for readability".
Thin sans serif body text is how you show you hate your reader's eyes.
And they didn't even run a damn spell-checker over the thing:
> For additional background and guideance (sic)
(Points for using the correct word "typeface" in lieu of "font" tho. Are you watching Woz!?)
> Roboto is a contemporary sans serif typeface designed for readability.
That's an oxymoron: "sans serif typeface designed for readability".
Thin sans serif body text is how you show you hate your reader's eyes.
And they didn't even run a damn spell-checker over the thing:
> For additional background and guideance (sic)
(Points for using the correct word "typeface" in lieu of "font" tho. Are you watching Woz!?)
For screen reading, sans is often preferred. It's possible that this is somewhat outdated advice with the advent of High-DPI displays, but it certainly still holds true if you're targetting a diverse set of devices, including older screens.
And, since you went there first: "lieu".
And, since you went there first: "lieu".
D'oh! I mispelled "lieu" but corrected it within the edit window. Heh.
That's classic: I'm scolding the other fellow for not looking where he's going and I walk into a pole myself. Heh.
but... I'm a rando posting in anger. They're a brand company that just released a thing for Google with a typo in the "Brand Guide". (It's in the PDF, is it in the hardcopy? I'd be mortified if this was my project.)
I don't really have a response for your point about screen reading.
That's classic: I'm scolding the other fellow for not looking where he's going and I walk into a pole myself. Heh.
but... I'm a rando posting in anger. They're a brand company that just released a thing for Google with a typo in the "Brand Guide". (It's in the PDF, is it in the hardcopy? I'd be mortified if this was my project.)
I don't really have a response for your point about screen reading.
>That's classic: I'm scolding the other fellow for not looking where he's going and I walk into a pole myself. Heh.
Muphry's Law :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
Muphry's Law :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
Eh, I'm really not feeling this. I mean, I just really loved that silly little cartoon gopher and his goofy little eyes. It had a personality.
This is something that really irritates me about Google and their products, services, "stuff" if you will. Their branding is contemporary but at the same time has absolutely no excitement or personality to it. I mean, it's till contemporary, it still uses interesting colors and stuff, but they strip away all personality from everything that they do in the interest of appealing to a worldwide audience.
Whatever, joke's on them, I'm going to vehemently deny that this new brand exists. I'm not going to let a branding agency ruin things for me.
This is something that really irritates me about Google and their products, services, "stuff" if you will. Their branding is contemporary but at the same time has absolutely no excitement or personality to it. I mean, it's till contemporary, it still uses interesting colors and stuff, but they strip away all personality from everything that they do in the interest of appealing to a worldwide audience.
Whatever, joke's on them, I'm going to vehemently deny that this new brand exists. I'm not going to let a branding agency ruin things for me.
To be fair, the gopher does appear on their branding in place, just not where the blog post has shown.
The agency page for their work on Go features an updated gopher graphic, and I think the home page looks quite nice. The branding booklet looks like standard agency stuff, but if they were to use the gopher a bit more I could get behind it.
http://within.us/google-go/
The agency page for their work on Go features an updated gopher graphic, and I think the home page looks quite nice. The branding booklet looks like standard agency stuff, but if they were to use the gopher a bit more I could get behind it.
http://within.us/google-go/
The circular shape of the letters hints at the eyes of the Go gopher, creating a familiar shape
I found it agreeable, woody, complex and balanced, with notes of ash and clover.
I found it agreeable, woody, complex and balanced, with notes of ash and clover.
Is that a bit of peach on the finish? And maybe some citrus?
But: are they sustainably harvested?
Can't resist a good design critique so here goes. My take echoes many of the gut first impressions expressed by others.
Presumably the Go design team added the speed lines at the left to connote speed, performance, and and the future progress and adoption of the language. But the way the lines are conceived is generic. The variation of lengths, meant to evoke the chaotic air turbulence behind a rapidly accelerating race car, is tired. Nothing we haven't seen millions of times before. And not particularly well thought out. In direct contradiction to the expressive power and beauty of the language itself.
The best thing about the design is of course the hidden encapsulation of the mathematical symbol for "infinity". Although, again I find myself at a loss to understand the exact nature of the relation. A possible reference to the ability to spawn millions of goroutines?
The execution of the infinity symbol itself is muddled by the sharp corners of the G's aperture. Shouldn't it be more rounded? It's menacing resemblance to a PC-era on/off power symbol rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise is distracting.
And lastly, the most troubling of all. Whither the beloved Gopher? A clear nod to the linux penguin. And a secret totem to those who have been initiated. A hieroglyph for the high priests. No text necessary.
Make no doubt about what this rebranding portends. Enterprise Go, Team Edition coming soon ;)
Presumably the Go design team added the speed lines at the left to connote speed, performance, and and the future progress and adoption of the language. But the way the lines are conceived is generic. The variation of lengths, meant to evoke the chaotic air turbulence behind a rapidly accelerating race car, is tired. Nothing we haven't seen millions of times before. And not particularly well thought out. In direct contradiction to the expressive power and beauty of the language itself.
The best thing about the design is of course the hidden encapsulation of the mathematical symbol for "infinity". Although, again I find myself at a loss to understand the exact nature of the relation. A possible reference to the ability to spawn millions of goroutines?
The execution of the infinity symbol itself is muddled by the sharp corners of the G's aperture. Shouldn't it be more rounded? It's menacing resemblance to a PC-era on/off power symbol rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise is distracting.
And lastly, the most troubling of all. Whither the beloved Gopher? A clear nod to the linux penguin. And a secret totem to those who have been initiated. A hieroglyph for the high priests. No text necessary.
Make no doubt about what this rebranding portends. Enterprise Go, Team Edition coming soon ;)
> In direct contradiction to the expressive power and beauty of the language itself.
Well Go doesn’t particularly excel in the expressiveness department, so in that sense I guess this new logo is fitting?
Well Go doesn’t particularly excel in the expressiveness department, so in that sense I guess this new logo is fitting?
> A clear nod to the linux penguin. And a secret totem to those who have been initiated. A hieroglyph for the high priests. No text necessary.
That's... looking into it quite a lot, isn't it? It seems like just a playful mascot.
That's... looking into it quite a lot, isn't it? It seems like just a playful mascot.
Yeah, if anything it's a nod to Plan 9's Glenda the bunny -- they're by the same artist, even!
> Whither the beloved Gopher?
https://ibb.co/jB786x
https://ibb.co/jB786x
Looks like a courier company. Very bland and corporate looking which I guess is the focus of Go as a language. It am a mediocre programmer so I really like Go, it is my main language, but it is an uninspiring language by design.
This logo looks aimed at suits and not the Go community. That might not be a bad thing for Go jobs and for Google. Open source communities often have puns in naming or plushy worthy logos and just generally playfulness which I don't see in this logo.
This logo looks aimed at suits and not the Go community. That might not be a bad thing for Go jobs and for Google. Open source communities often have puns in naming or plushy worthy logos and just generally playfulness which I don't see in this logo.
Reminds me of the playful acronym for PHP, which is "PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor".
The rebranding might make the language look sleeker and more enterprisey but it looks that they're rejecting their spirit of playfulness in order to appeal to the likes of Oracle clients and take away more Java mindshare.
Go's language design is fundamentally about rigidity and consistency -- and I'm not saying that's bad -- but it's pretty far from playful.
I'd consider languages like JavaScript, Ruby, and Python to be playful languages by comparison.
I'd consider languages like JavaScript, Ruby, and Python to be playful languages by comparison.
TBH I've always thought of Go as Google's Java. With some decisions to make developing at super-big-co even nicer, which helps you at google scale.
I've always thought of Go as Google's Java 1.4.
Not really, more like Java 1.1.
Java 1.4 already had much more features and library offerings than Go still lacks.
Java 1.4 already had much more features and library offerings than Go still lacks.
The Go standard library is top notch, especially for networking.
Might be, but it is a tiny portion of Java's standard library, including networking, even when comparing against Java 1.4, let alone 10.
I always thought of Go as Google's Erlang.
Erlang is so much more than just green threads. They're not at all comparable.
I think this gets too many downvotes. Yes, static vs dynamic typing. Yes, imperative vs functional language. On the other hand, CSP is conceptually fairly close to the Actor Model, so there are definitely similarities. I've written go code that looks similar to Erlang (a go routine receiving messages from an `interface{}` channel in a for loop and then dispatching based on the type.
Conceptually they are worlds apart. Supervision trees are even impossible in idiomatic Go.
Supervision trees have nothing to do with Actors or CSP. I can recommend reading the original papers.
Golang not well supporting supervision trees has more to do with the runtime not allowing to kill a goroutine. See http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2930
Golang not well supporting supervision trees has more to do with the runtime not allowing to kill a goroutine. See http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2930
Highly disappointing. They took the soul out of it, the gopher is not even included as part of the logo, like a wink in history. The Gopher IS GO! Its scruffy looks, small and mighty made it approachable and fun.
This looks like they hired an external team of wan#&$%, pardon the term, but humour me for a second: the brand guide pdf:
- ven diagram, check
- big wanky words, check
- big wanky opposite words, check
- proxy terms that are samey to any brand they'd do, check
This could have been delivered on April 1st.
This looks like they hired an external team of wan#&$%, pardon the term, but humour me for a second: the brand guide pdf:
- ven diagram, check
- big wanky words, check
- big wanky opposite words, check
- proxy terms that are samey to any brand they'd do, check
This could have been delivered on April 1st.
I checked the date to make sure this wasn't an old April Fools' joke. The new design language is minimalistic, but it's not simple, and doesn't reflect the programming language at all.
Looks awfully like design by committee, lowest common denominator taste. There is zero distinctiveness and character.
Even java kept coffee cup and duke.
Even java kept coffee cup and duke.
Doesn't look like design by committee to me, just shows lack of experience.
Gotta say I love Duke even though I've never done Java.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Duke_%28...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Duke_%28...
Even?
If there's one crime against UI and design that stands far above the others, it's Java's GUI framework.
If there's one crime against UI and design that stands far above the others, it's Java's GUI framework.
Sleek new logo makes it look like a bicycle renting start up. While I think its good to refresh branding and aim to unify more things, I will miss the Go Gopher.
Renee French, the original illustrator of the Go Gopher, is still updating the gopher:
http://reneefrench.blogspot.com
I'm partial to this take on the little fella: http://reneefrench.blogspot.com/2016/11/blog-post.html
I'm partial to this take on the little fella: http://reneefrench.blogspot.com/2016/11/blog-post.html
The gopher didn't go away. You can find it on pages 21 & 22 of the new Brand Book: https://storage.googleapis.com/golang-assets/go-brand-book-v...
Nice! In that case I am all on board with the new logo
I'm sure it's head will poke up here and there.
Perhaps this won't be a popular sentiment, but since when did programming languages need brand identity?
Always! People underestimate the subliminal effects of good design. In the early days of Slack, several people I know (not in tech) were practically begging to use it at their workplace. The reason? The branding was "mesmerizing," particularly the hash. I think the same goes for programming languages.
Everything is about impression and perception. For example, I have observed that people treat me more seriously when I dress better than with the typical "jeans+tshirt" combo.
Now, we can say this is superficial bullshit, but at the end of the day, the way you dress influence people's perception of you.
So in my opinion, Go's new branding give it a more "serious" image and perhaps people unfamiliar with the language will be more inclined to consider it.
Again, it's superficial bullshit, but it is what it is.
Now, we can say this is superficial bullshit, but at the end of the day, the way you dress influence people's perception of you.
So in my opinion, Go's new branding give it a more "serious" image and perhaps people unfamiliar with the language will be more inclined to consider it.
Again, it's superficial bullshit, but it is what it is.
In this case the cliché brand identity is the jeans and t-shirt combo. Does hip branding not make a language seem juvenile? You talk about serious image, but surely you can't find more serious languages than those devoid of branding, like C and Lisp.
Neither C nor Lisp have any branding at all, do they ? Other than the moustache, and frankly, on that front Perl has got them beat.
For C, it's basically the cover of the K&R2.
It helps when the language is the only path to write for a specific platform.
The new logo is more serious than the gopher.
It seems like a factual claim, not a sentiment.
Languages do need to develop a critical mass of resources related to them, people need to provide services for them, and you do want to identify which ones are official. For that purpose, a brand identity is going to be helpful. (At least as helpful as a brand can be.)
In a nutshell, it's about ensuring people can distinguish between golang.org and w3schools.com.
Languages do need to develop a critical mass of resources related to them, people need to provide services for them, and you do want to identify which ones are official. For that purpose, a brand identity is going to be helpful. (At least as helpful as a brand can be.)
In a nutshell, it's about ensuring people can distinguish between golang.org and w3schools.com.
Probably for similar reasons that modern "brands" developed: to compete with the competition who mostly provide the same thing as you.
One of the reasons I really like Python is it never had any of this crap. It's popular just because it's useful and people like it.
I think that though Python is popular independent of its branding, it definitely has a strong branding system, just less explicitly stated as go's. Their font is quite iconic, and their logo and colors more so: https://www.python.org/community/logos/
That all happened waaaay later.
Plus when it comes to moustaches, Python's is ... well ... "better than Cobol" seems an apt description.
Python used to have a cute hand-drawn animal logo too.
In fact there are old comments on HN from '05 when people lamented the loss of the old logo..
http://www.demiurgo.org/charlas/python-unittesting/img/pytho...
In fact there are old comments on HN from '05 when people lamented the loss of the old logo..
http://www.demiurgo.org/charlas/python-unittesting/img/pytho...
Logos are not the only signs of a brand. Already the fact that there is the word "pythonic" signifies a strong branding.
Around the time exploits needed fancy names.
Since people have to convince their management that a given language is a suitable choice to run the company's main product.
I don't think languages should need branding, but the marketing department of a large corporate disagrees in this case
Most people who got into Laravel did it because it was pretty.
"Rest easy, our beloved Gopher Mascot remains at the center of our brand"
Then why is the mascot not featured in the post even once?
Then why is the mascot not featured in the post even once?
Looks like they are loosing the bespoke Go fonts (https://blog.golang.org/go-fonts) and going with Work Sans and Roboto. I understand the reasoning.
Personally, I have a big soft spot in my heart for the go fonts . Whenever I feel like coding like it's 1979 again, I load them up in my editor and pretend I'm looking at well written documentation from my childhood.
[edit: Yay, Go fonts remain for source code display!]
Personally, I have a big soft spot in my heart for the go fonts . Whenever I feel like coding like it's 1979 again, I load them up in my editor and pretend I'm looking at well written documentation from my childhood.
[edit: Yay, Go fonts remain for source code display!]
I hadn't seen these yet. Thanks for linking.
I was a little late for 1979, but I still enjoy the aesthetic.
edit: I've been using Iosevka for a while now— which I guess a mildly similar feel, but narrower.
I was a little late for 1979, but I still enjoy the aesthetic.
edit: I've been using Iosevka for a while now— which I guess a mildly similar feel, but narrower.
I know it is petty and irrational but I judge the quality of a software project by how boring it looks, where boringness is better. The more it looks like some university professor's web 0.1 hand-coded HTML project circa 1993 the better. Just look at this sexy boring website, it tells you that things are going to work perfectly with no bullshit or corporate-speak included. https://gcc.gnu.org/
I don't think it's petty or irrational. It signals to me that there are more important things than selling decal stickers and t-shirts. It says we don't care about exposing this technology to the largest possible crowd and diluting what can be produced with it.
I love C and Lua, and both are untrendy, long-lasting languages that don't attract particular crowds, and it means that when I produce something with them, unlike the trendier side of software development, it will actually last and run 5 years from now.
I think branding like this is a double edged sword. It says, "We're trendy and attractive, but established," and at the same time it says, "We guarantee you're going to love our mascot plushies and the high quality $15 decal stickers you're going to slap on your $1,299 MacBook Pro that you just got back from the Apple Store over a stuck key repair."
I love C and Lua, and both are untrendy, long-lasting languages that don't attract particular crowds, and it means that when I produce something with them, unlike the trendier side of software development, it will actually last and run 5 years from now.
I think branding like this is a double edged sword. It says, "We're trendy and attractive, but established," and at the same time it says, "We guarantee you're going to love our mascot plushies and the high quality $15 decal stickers you're going to slap on your $1,299 MacBook Pro that you just got back from the Apple Store over a stuck key repair."
I totally agree, the more boring, the better. Like Berkshire Hathway's website [1]. This is especially true for things like investment firms and programming languages. The fact that they don't spend any ounce of time/resources on branding itself is a cool brand. They don't need it and they don't give a shit.
Now, I do not endorse a complete neglect for cohesiveness and consistency. In the case of Go, it has an interesting interplay between sophistication and fun - this was a perfect opportunity to make an xkcd style cartoony brand that conveyed both simultaneously. Instead what we got is an infuriating bullshit that looks like one of those stock logo/branding templates I can buy for $19.95. Sigh.
[1] http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/
Now, I do not endorse a complete neglect for cohesiveness and consistency. In the case of Go, it has an interesting interplay between sophistication and fun - this was a perfect opportunity to make an xkcd style cartoony brand that conveyed both simultaneously. Instead what we got is an infuriating bullshit that looks like one of those stock logo/branding templates I can buy for $19.95. Sigh.
[1] http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/
Compare to clang's website, which has the same aesthetic and is half as busy (visually): https://clang.llvm.org/
The logo for LLVM is a big silver dragon
They kept the gopher. But they provide a model sheet.
"The gopher is not a logo. However, when appropriate, it can and should be used on communications that are Go branded, but should not be used in place of our logo, nor should it be placed too closely around the logo, so as to infer it's an alternate logo."
Hey, they linked to a talk by Renee French about her design of the gopher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rw_B4yY69k
"The gopher is not a logo. However, when appropriate, it can and should be used on communications that are Go branded, but should not be used in place of our logo, nor should it be placed too closely around the logo, so as to infer it's an alternate logo."
Hey, they linked to a talk by Renee French about her design of the gopher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rw_B4yY69k
> “… nor should [the gopher] be placed too closely around the logo, so as to infer it's an alternate logo.”
I doubt the gopher is either clever enough or interested enough to infer that.
I doubt the gopher is either clever enough or interested enough to infer that.
It's really sad and insulting to the language itself to do this - while there's nothing wrong with the design assets and guidelines, this looks like it was a template bought for $29.99 off a design website.
The problem is that the design has no connection or correlation at all with what the design is for. The difference is superbly obvious in the slide masters - look at the code samples - that code looks like it has absolutely no place on a slide like that.
That's true of the entire design language - it's great for a startup trying to be cool, but has nothing to do with Go. It's like what we'd get if we asked one of our designer interns to come with a brand language and the only brief they were given is "It's called Go, and this mascot is non-negotiable".
The problem is that the design has no connection or correlation at all with what the design is for. The difference is superbly obvious in the slide masters - look at the code samples - that code looks like it has absolutely no place on a slide like that.
That's true of the entire design language - it's great for a startup trying to be cool, but has nothing to do with Go. It's like what we'd get if we asked one of our designer interns to come with a brand language and the only brief they were given is "It's called Go, and this mascot is non-negotiable".
I know folks love the gopher, but I’m a fan of this to be honest.
The hand drawn gopher just looked... childish? It definitely didn’t give me the impression of an efficient and well put together programming language.
The hand drawn gopher just looked... childish? It definitely didn’t give me the impression of an efficient and well put together programming language.
It's probably silly but I like it when logos/mascots are like that—you know, slightly helpless and not oozing of focused branding efforts. It makes me feel more certain that the language/technology is used because of its actual merits rather than its branding.
The Go gopher is a redraw of Glenda, the Plan 9 bunny. Many of Plan 9's principals worked on Go, which is itself an update of Alef, Plan 9's planned systems language, before it was canned and replaced with C.
I'm sure he'll still be around as a mascot. He's still on the site's main page. I really don't see the problem with him -- most commercial internet servers run a kernel with a cute penguin mascot, and many of the rest run a kernel with a cute mascot who is literally the Devil -- but I can appreciate the strategy of opening with a punchy, barebones logotype.
I'm sure he'll still be around as a mascot. He's still on the site's main page. I really don't see the problem with him -- most commercial internet servers run a kernel with a cute penguin mascot, and many of the rest run a kernel with a cute mascot who is literally the Devil -- but I can appreciate the strategy of opening with a punchy, barebones logotype.
Interesting, I didn't know that
https://9p.io/plan9/glenda.html
https://9p.io/plan9/glenda.html
Was it really a redraw of the Plan 9 bunny? According to the Go website it says the gopher was created for a radio station fund raiser.
About 15 years ago—long before the Go project—the gopher first appeared as a promotion for the WFMU radio station in New Jersey. Renee French was commissioned to design a T-shirt for an annual fundraiser and out came the gopher.
About 15 years ago—long before the Go project—the gopher first appeared as a promotion for the WFMU radio station in New Jersey. Renee French was commissioned to design a T-shirt for an annual fundraiser and out came the gopher.
Guess who also designed Glenda.
French, of course. The Gopher, however, is not a "redraw" of the rabbit.
You forgot Inferno and Limbo.
The gopher isn't going away, though. The last pages of the brand book pdf give guidance on how to use it.
The gopher's in the brand book. Doesn't appear to be going anywhere.
yeah neither does a cockroach for a database.
Yeah, but CRDB’s logo is pretty stylized and simple/clean. The hand drawn style for the gopher just didn’t work for a lot of applications.
It was too detailed to use as an icon, and the lines were too thin to look good when printed.
It was too detailed to use as an icon, and the lines were too thin to look good when printed.
Logo design and acceptance (by the ones commissioning it) is a strange thing, in my experience. This new logo looks like a gas/fuel station logo or a racing logo. I can't imagine it being dissociated with these categories. The older gopher one, though kinda whimsical, was nicer, cuter and amenable to be modified to indicate different things in different contexts. This new logo is static and is the opposite of the old one in many ways.
New logo designs, of things that have been around for sometime, invite derision and ridicule (and for good measure). Getting used to such decisions will take time.
New logo designs, of things that have been around for sometime, invite derision and ridicule (and for good measure). Getting used to such decisions will take time.
Ha! Gas station was the first thing that came to my mind, then car rental company.
The "Go logo" has always been something like "-=GO"[1]. There's not much changing here, unless the announcement signals that they're going to start de-emphasizing the acquired-taste gopher.
[1] See the black/white image halfway down the page-- https://blog.golang.org/gopher
[1] See the black/white image halfway down the page-- https://blog.golang.org/gopher
Spot on. It seems to me that everybody missed the point. The gopher won't go away (it appears in the official guide) but this new brand is just a modern evolution of the official logo which was eclipsed by the gopher.
Gopher got demoted to page 22? What a sad day to be a gopher.
I may be in the rare (for this site) situation of never having heard of of GO (I'm not a programmer) when I clicked the link and my first impression was that this was rebranding for some food delivery service.
I thought "courier" immediately. I think it's clean and effective, but I don't have any interest/care for the language and don't recall ever having seen its gopher or whatever represented it before. I can appreciate that those who have would have a stronger and different reaction.
I immediately thought of the book Go, Dog Go!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go,_Dog._Go!
The old gopher wasn't serious either, but at least it was fun.
The old gopher wasn't serious either, but at least it was fun.
Why...the...fuck.... does a programming language need a branding team?????
To sell you shit, and sell you the appeal of using the language.
why fix whats not broken? I like the plan 9/unix/KISS style? Like who seriously sat there and was like, this is something we need help with and was like we need outside help with this.
The brand book is astonishingly horrible and is not an improvement on the way we are digesting the information.
The brand book is astonishingly horrible and is not an improvement on the way we are digesting the information.
1. Go already has a brand and logo recognized by everyone.
2. Go is a programming language, not a brand, I as a developer don't really care what the brand look like. So, to the community and the GO team: please don't make this a big deal!
"Our logo follows the brand’s core philosophy of simplicity over complexity."
The logo and the philosophy behind it are the first things anyone, professional designer or not, would think of. If Go's philosophy was to implement the first thing that comes to mind, it would have generics by now :) I think they need to put a little more thought into this.
Edit: Maybe the design could could incorporate a visual representation of goroutines in some way?
The logo and the philosophy behind it are the first things anyone, professional designer or not, would think of. If Go's philosophy was to implement the first thing that comes to mind, it would have generics by now :) I think they need to put a little more thought into this.
Edit: Maybe the design could could incorporate a visual representation of goroutines in some way?
A few more details on the design agency's site:
http://within.us/google-go/
http://within.us/google-go/
The phone mockup is weird. Can you even install Go on a phone?
You can certainly create Go based mobile applications on iOS and Android.
I lost it at the Go business cards...
[deleted]
Well this certainly looks very corporate and professional now. I suppose that fits their targeted audience better.
It also makes developers vouching for Go seem more credible.
Yikes. What's next, using syntax highlighting on presentations?
Imagine how many external contributors could have been sponsored to work on Go for the money Google blew on this project.
How much does it cost to "refine" the Speed Racer logo?
Way more than you think. And now that I told you that, 10-50x more than you revised estimation.
This is really the wrong move. Really sucks the personality out of go. I felt the old brand clearly highlighted the important thing is, and where the most time is spent, is the code
This is interesting to me. I have more than a peripheral interest in art and design, but my day job is heavy systems programming using Go/Scala and the like. I think there is a huge market advantage to correctly branding stuff developers use. For me this is, excuse the hyperbole, almost objectively a terrible rebranding of Go. The Gopher, while not currently wholely representative of what Go has become...is iconic and a lovely homage to the playfulness and irreverency of hacker culture. What an opportunity to update and infuse the brand with how the language has developed. I love what other people are doing with the gopher (like the the dep packager).
On top of this, I can't get over the fact that the design team can't draw. What? How much are you guys getting paid?
On top of this, I can't get over the fact that the design team can't draw. What? How much are you guys getting paid?
Looks like the logo for a stop-n-shop-style grocery store.
Wow. This is bad. It looks like a tire or automotive company logo for some reason. It seems like someone with no real design intuition was in charge of picking the final logo.
Why not make several ones and ask the community for their favorite one?
Why not make several ones and ask the community for their favorite one?
There's only one purpose of good brand identity and that's to be remembered. I don't see how this is more memorable than the beloved Gopher.
Edit: Gopher is still the official mascot, though. So that's good.
Edit: Gopher is still the official mascot, though. So that's good.
Looks like they had the interns design this during their down time. Really forgettable, and uninspired.
The Gopher took a nice cozy corporate job and is sitting now in a cubicle. He wears a suit and a tie instead of Hawaiian shirt. It's a serious business now.
This won't make the language any better.
It will make the language more approachable for new comers.
The Go website is _almost_ as bare bones as it gets. It functions fine and we are familiar with it.
But compared to say Python, the site looks pretty amateur. If you were to judge a language by its website, I'd say Python looks better.
The new branding can lead the way to a more put together presentation, and that could be good for the growth of the community.
It will make the language more approachable for new comers.
The Go website is _almost_ as bare bones as it gets. It functions fine and we are familiar with it.
But compared to say Python, the site looks pretty amateur. If you were to judge a language by its website, I'd say Python looks better.
The new branding can lead the way to a more put together presentation, and that could be good for the growth of the community.
The logo is just the start. The website will also be refreshed.
The website will be getting a refresh based on the new design. Since we are making significant changes, we are also taking this opportunity to update our website infrastructure to support internationalization and multilingual to better serve our global community. The migration will happen in stages over the next few months starting with this blog.
The website will be getting a refresh based on the new design. Since we are making significant changes, we are also taking this opportunity to update our website infrastructure to support internationalization and multilingual to better serve our global community. The migration will happen in stages over the next few months starting with this blog.
Go's online documentation is the best I've ever seen for a language. You can still hear Rob Pike's diction in the core functionality sections -- precise as a scalpel.
Now a "design agency" has their claws into it. My own feelings are nausea, and fear.
Now a "design agency" has their claws into it. My own feelings are nausea, and fear.
I don't care so much about the way a sight looks so long as it works well. Both the go and python sites work well for me, thus they're models in my mind for well documented languages.
Whatever. Everyone hates new designs at first and then we get used to them. Go is cool and I think it could be a good thing that they're putting some work into making it look cool. It's good to have an awareness of your programming language among non-technical people and use branding to communicate qualities they can't pick up by actually using the language.
> they're putting some work into making it look cool
They might be trying to make it look cool, but what they have accomplished is to make it look corporate, which is pretty much diametrically opposite of cool.
They might be trying to make it look cool, but what they have accomplished is to make it look corporate, which is pretty much diametrically opposite of cool.
Developers will use Go because if its technical aspects.Features like concurrency primitives that make go what it is. Nobody is going to ditch Go because they don't like the new branding. "Rewrite everything in Rust, the new logo sucks". The branding is for non technical people, like executives and other non-technical employees across the company. What they are trying to convey to these people is that there is something new, exciting, and better happening with Go -- something developers know, but others who don't understand technical details won't get. The other purpose is probably to highlight to Alphabet investors the investments Google is making in the Go programing language, and to try and make them understand how impactful that investment has been.
If you're going to pick a language based on what's "cool", you might not be golang's target user base anyway...
GP comments choice of words, not mine
I am not a branding expert, and that's a good thing, because it took a full 5 minutes to really figure out what the heck they are doing here. They wanted something "Simple & Speed" to be associated with Go which are certainly attributes of Go I have read about.
While I don't really 'care' about the logo of a programming language per se, this makes 'GO' look like a courier / delivery company to me, it also seems a little odd that both letters are the same case.
For some reason it instantly made me think of the cover of "Go,dog. Go!".
It looks really bland and unremarkable now. Maybe just a little bit understated.
I am going to miss the gopher :(
Go's branding will always be the gopher in my eyes.
Go's branding will always be the gopher in my eyes.
One thing about this new branding is that I have never ever seen Go spelled with all caps (GO). Most only see it as either "Go" or "go". Spelling it with all caps ("GO") makes it look like a single shapeless typographic slab. "Go" is found in text, and "go" is found in code, cmd and everything related.
In the original the letters were thinner, and that could have made it feel more lightweight, so it wasn't that bad.
In the original the letters were thinner, and that could have made it feel more lightweight, so it wasn't that bad.
[deleted]
This is so much better than that silly cartoon they had before. Sure it was cute and fun, but for a modern language it felt so ... childish. As someone who works professionally as an illustrator and dabbles with code, this is just my two cents, and whether you like or dislike a logo is 100% entirely subjective. This new logo/identity feels much more refreshing and importantly, professional. At least in my books.
Next up, Java's atrocious coffee cup logo perhaps?
Next up, Java's atrocious coffee cup logo perhaps?
The gopher was never the logo. From the brand book:
> "The gopher is not a logo"
The gopher stays on as go's mascot. The brand book even has a page on how to draw it!
The gopher stays on as go's mascot. The brand book even has a page on how to draw it!
Bland and forgettable.
The gopher mascot was embraced by the community. It's a programming language... the need for a "corporate brand treatment" should be mocked.
The gopher mascot was embraced by the community. It's a programming language... the need for a "corporate brand treatment" should be mocked.
At first glance I disliked it, but after a second look at it I think it's quite nice. It's bold, clean, and simple. People are generally resistant to change but it's something they'll become accustomed to fairly quick. Glad to know they kept the little guy gopher mascot.
I like the old brand better...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Golang.p...
Reminds me of a logo that was on a tv remote controller I used to have. Do they seriously think it’s witty to most people? All I see is a two letter word without any context or deeper implications. Okay, maybe the word is moving right. But that’s it.
Reminds me of the logo for GQ India.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/GQ_India_logo...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/GQ_India_logo...
- Who is responsible for such rebrandings? Does the Google marketing team decide one day that the Go language needs a new identity, or was this a request by the language designers?
- Does a rebranding need approval from the language designers?
- Does a rebranding need approval from the language designers?
I don't like the big thin typeface in those materials, too snobby. The logo itself is OK, they should have used a bold font like that, and maybe just use the outlines to represent the lightweightness visually.
It looks like the Gopher mascot will still be on the (possible) new frontpage http://within.us/google-go/.
Is Go a programing language that lands you a job the fastest these days ?
Judging from the palette, it looks to me that they're getting the language prepared for Android or more possibly Fuchsia.
I'm eager to see how they're going to replace Java little-by-little.
I'm eager to see how they're going to replace Java little-by-little.
I was very happy to see the Go font was a part of this (page 19).
I'm so glad I don't have to sit through design presentations anymore. Just reading the first few words of the "Brand Book" made me die inside.
This new logo looks sterile and boring, creativity-wise. It isn't clever neither. I'm excited for the official website redesign, however. It needs it.
Man, even I prefer that cute little gopher to this new branding.
Better spend money improving the real issues of the language, instead of paying to agencies for this outcome.
Better spend money improving the real issues of the language, instead of paying to agencies for this outcome.
Gopher is a fork of Go, but keeps the cute Gopher logo FOREVER. ;)
LONG LIVE GOPHER!
Our homepage: http://gopher.gg
LONG LIVE GOPHER!
Our homepage: http://gopher.gg
that's cool!
apply for gopher maintainer
The "new" logo looks even worse than TNT or UPS... Should we start a petition on Change.org to stop this happening??
It looks like a ride-sharing service logo.
I guess ya'll should just switch to erlang then with it's negative space internet explorer logo.
Since it looks like an infinity symbol, so the little speed burst at the left is not working for me.
The gopher was what initally caught my attention. Cant believe they did away of that little dude.
this is so stupid ...
a freaking brand book for a programming language. god damn :-) can we get more hipster?
on the other hand, its also fun. maybe i should just complain less and enjoy the beautiful colors :D
on the other hand, its also fun. maybe i should just complain less and enjoy the beautiful colors :D
Go™ Enterprise Edition.
the logo is pretty forgettable, but on the bright side - at page 24 of the PDF they announced that Go 2.0 will have generics
Perhaps this new brand was just a psychological experiment to see how easy it is to bait Hacker News into a 200+ comment thread on bikeshedding?
I see you're being downvoted but this whole topic indeed is just that, bikeshedding.
[deleted]
Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!
gophers 4eva, I refuse the new logo.
gophers 4eva, I refuse the new logo.
#NotMyLogo
So you're a racing company?
Reading the comments here makes it clear why most programmers should stay away from design.
I've programmed for 20 years now, but that stupid gopher and the way it was everywhere was a serious put off for me on giving Go a look. Nerdy AF.
Good riddance.
I wonder if there was a huge internal battle between the brand savvy people which realized how terrible the gopher was, and the Go creators.
Guys, don't be so stereotypical, expand your horizon outside of Pokemon and Star Wars esthetics. I'll put it in a more obvious form: a lot of you like Apple, can you imagine for a second that gopher on anything Apple?
Downvotes away...
I've programmed for 20 years now, but that stupid gopher and the way it was everywhere was a serious put off for me on giving Go a look. Nerdy AF.
Good riddance.
I wonder if there was a huge internal battle between the brand savvy people which realized how terrible the gopher was, and the Go creators.
Guys, don't be so stereotypical, expand your horizon outside of Pokemon and Star Wars esthetics. I'll put it in a more obvious form: a lot of you like Apple, can you imagine for a second that gopher on anything Apple?
Downvotes away...
> ... that stupid gopher and the way it was everywhere was a serious put off for me on giving Go a look. Nerdy AF.
Go is a programming language whose dominant demographic is nerds.
> ... can you imagine for a second that gopher on anything Apple?
Apple is a consumer oriented tech firm whose niche is high end goods.
> Reading the comments here makes it clear why most programmers should stay away from design.
You don't say.
Go is a programming language whose dominant demographic is nerds.
> ... can you imagine for a second that gopher on anything Apple?
Apple is a consumer oriented tech firm whose niche is high end goods.
> Reading the comments here makes it clear why most programmers should stay away from design.
You don't say.
apple likes their own nerdy mascots. Note the devil horns are a shout out to the freebsd demon. People don't bitch about the python!
http://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/_english/bs-d...
http://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/_english/bs-d...
And don't forget Clarus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogcow
> Go is a programming language whose dominant demographic is nerds.
Hence why we need a new logo to attract developers from other demographics. A good language without a diverse and wide set of users is worthless.
Hence why we need a new logo to attract developers from other demographics. A good language without a diverse and wide set of users is worthless.
Are... are you comparing the branding for a programming language to the branding for a massive multinational consumer product company?
Here's a more down-to-earth thought experiment:
Think about the intentions/audience behind a programming language vs the intentions behind a massive consumer product company like Apple.
I like the programming languages I use to be free and open-source - not constricted by some gigantic corporation (coughOracle). Free, open ideals come from the old hobbyist counter culture a few decades ago. That stuff predates me but when I see that ridiculous gopher I feel like they don't care about how they look, and would rather focus on the language itself and keeping their audience (devs) happy. Kind of like - no one cares about the suit, I don't care how you look - just get stuff done.
All this begs the question - why the fuck did they spend time on this branding?
Here's a more down-to-earth thought experiment:
Think about the intentions/audience behind a programming language vs the intentions behind a massive consumer product company like Apple.
I like the programming languages I use to be free and open-source - not constricted by some gigantic corporation (coughOracle). Free, open ideals come from the old hobbyist counter culture a few decades ago. That stuff predates me but when I see that ridiculous gopher I feel like they don't care about how they look, and would rather focus on the language itself and keeping their audience (devs) happy. Kind of like - no one cares about the suit, I don't care how you look - just get stuff done.
All this begs the question - why the fuck did they spend time on this branding?
I'm pretty sure the intended audience for this logo / branding is not programmers but managers & customers. Programmers are here because of the qualities of the language and tooling, but business guys get nervous when you tell them you want to use that tool with that cute and funny mascot.
I think google is trying to make Go look serious and respectable from a business guy point of view, and especially not make them think "it's a hobbyist counter-culture thing". No one cares about the suit ? You bet those guys do, they wear suits.
I think google is trying to make Go look serious and respectable from a business guy point of view, and especially not make them think "it's a hobbyist counter-culture thing". No one cares about the suit ? You bet those guys do, they wear suits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogcow
OK, its old - but it certainly served the same purpose in branding "the priesthood" that lived and breathed the ecosystem.
Less prevelent: see Hexley, Darwin's (unofficial) BSD-Devil Platypus mascot - http://www.hexley.com
OK, its old - but it certainly served the same purpose in branding "the priesthood" that lived and breathed the ecosystem.
Less prevelent: see Hexley, Darwin's (unofficial) BSD-Devil Platypus mascot - http://www.hexley.com
You don't use a language because you don't like their mascot? Renee's french art is great like Glenda the plan 9 bunny, way better than most mascots.
Many years ago, I've had a project manager reluctant to have us commit to the Hadoop ecosystem because, come on, "Pig", "Zoo"[keeper]... this can't be serious!
Sometimes people are the problem. Of course they're just names and have no incidence whatsoever on the relevance of a project. Until they do. For terrible reasons.
Sometimes people are the problem. Of course they're just names and have no incidence whatsoever on the relevance of a project. Until they do. For terrible reasons.
You realize that the gopher (and glenda before it) was created by professional illustrator and not programmers?
That is true, but its also worth pointing out a bit of context: the gopher was created by Rob Pike's, one of the creators', wife, who happens to be a professional illustrator.
Point being, its not like it was contracted to a professional design team. They took a very efficient programmer-like path: have a relative who knows design make it. And I love that as a geek, and I love the gopher, but from the perspective of a design professional its time the language got a true logo in addition to a geeky mascot.
Point being, its not like it was contracted to a professional design team. They took a very efficient programmer-like path: have a relative who knows design make it. And I love that as a geek, and I love the gopher, but from the perspective of a design professional its time the language got a true logo in addition to a geeky mascot.
For those interested in seeing Glenda:
https://blog.golang.org/gopher
https://blog.golang.org/gopher
That's not that relevant. What's relevant is who was the client who approved it. You can be the most brilliant architect in the world, but if the client want's a McMansion that's what you'll give him (or quit).
"People who don't agree that this is good are just dumb nerds, but UGH I'll get downvoted for this opinion"
1. Predicting downvotes is a great way to get downvotes.
2. Insulting the people you're talking to is a terrible way to convince them of anything.
3. Apple has silly logos everywhere - consider SquirrelFish Extreme and Darwin.
4. It's paramount that, above all, a brand plays to its crowd. Regardless of whatever notions of "good design" you possess, you can't deny that the Go logo designers failed to understand their audience, as evidenced by the reaction on HN and elsewhere.
The brand guidebook is pretty well designed and easy to understand: https://golang.org/s/brandbook
The mascot didn't go away. Too many people in the comments seems to be upset about it...
The mascot didn't go away. Too many people in the comments seems to be upset about it...
I knew this, but I found most of her work very offputting. It was certainly a strong and recognizable mascot, but really put me off learning the language for weird emotional reason.
It's a programming language not a consumer product. Who cares? The gopher was fun.
Sometimes you want to show your consumer what technologies you used in the product you're selling. The gopher looks very bad on "made with" slides. In a presentation, I had a slide with tons of logos presenting the technologies we used. In the middle of the javascript, html, css and maybe ruby (don't remember), the gopher looked childish and immature. Sometimes it can be ok (if your customer is a young, cool, laid-back start-upper), but sometimes it is not (think gray-haired guy from an industrial company).
Does the customer really care that a product was made with Go instead of C++, Rust, etc? Ruby has a gem and Rust has a rusted R. I guess those are less childish? Java with it's mocha brand is supposed to be professional looking? The customer sees a cup of coffee and thinks to themselves, "Wow, this product is definitely made with professional grade industry standards!".
The problem is, it looks like a child did it. Not a criticism per se, I personally like its design, but to outsiders (guys with suits), it looks somewhat amateur / immature (and these guys tend to care a lot about those things). And, yes, sometimes these people want to know what they paid for, whether they are customers (in b2b) or they are giving money (like a government agency or something), and a neat slide with lots of logos and oral explanations is often the way to go (pun unintended). Python's logo is an animal, too, but it looks clean and low-profile.
Unfortunately people do care that much about branding. On the bright side, the gopher isn't going away, it's only being relegated to a mascot role, like the Rust Crab.
> can you imagine for a second that gopher on anything Apple?
You mean like Hexley, the Darwin mascot?
You mean like Hexley, the Darwin mascot?
Well, Apple's logo is a sideways bitten apple. It's a cartoon too, just more stylish.
> I've programmed for 20 years now, but that stupid gopher and the way it was everywhere was a serious put off for me on giving Go a look
Nerdy? Will you give Go a try if they rename themselves to Luxurious Smart Mice then? :DDDDD
Nerdy? Will you give Go a try if they rename themselves to Luxurious Smart Mice then? :DDDDD
What the fuck does Renee French's work have to do with Pokemon or Star Wars?
What makes this reference even more bizarre is that Pokemon and Star Wars are incredible successful global brands.
To be fair I've seen that gopher plastered on many an Apple macbook (along side a wildebeast, an octopus or even a penguin :P).
The way you express it is a bit problematic and is going to cause a lot of angry replies but I agree. Go looks a bit out place in the corporate World. Like you present your boss a new plan for your project and it's supposed to use Go. You put in the gopher and the boss is gonna take you less seriously directly.
The new logo is good and fit for enterprise
The new logo is good and fit for enterprise
I agree with you and it looks like suc a person was in charge of choosing the new logo, so it’s still bad...
I totally agree. I only started playing with Go a few months ago and remember how amateurish the website and the mascot made it look. It gave the impression that it was a work in progress and research project instead of something that's been around for 8 years and used professionally.
> I only started playing with Go a few months ago and remember how amateurish the website and the mascot made it look.
If good, clean text which displays in any browser is amateurish … then I prefer amateurism to professionalism.
I really appreciate that the Go website (appears to be) good, clean HTML.
If good, clean text which displays in any browser is amateurish … then I prefer amateurism to professionalism.
I really appreciate that the Go website (appears to be) good, clean HTML.
> I really appreciate that the Go website (appears to be) good, clean HTML.
Not for long if the design company has their way. Just look at their site: http://within.us/
Not for long if the design company has their way. Just look at their site: http://within.us/
I had a bad reaction to it too but I think golang has probably crossed a certain threshold of adoption where if they want to grow even further they will have to cut into the market of the general population and those people definitely like that design more than the weird gopher.
the “general population” won’t be programming in any language any time soon. this is to capture the attention of mba types, in the hopes of forcing adoption on technical teams because it seems cool in some ephemeral sense only mba types get
Also known as the Java Gambit
no this is horrible
Or maybe you shouldn't have designers that clearly can't draw.
There's a long history of slightly or outright irreverent logos in the hacker community and you're on a forum that at the very least pays homage to that culture.
As others have pointed out, Hexley.
There's a long history of slightly or outright irreverent logos in the hacker community and you're on a forum that at the very least pays homage to that culture.
As others have pointed out, Hexley.
> makes it clear why most programmers should stay away from design.
Part of being a good designer is understanding the audience you are designing for. They didn't do that.
Part of being a good designer is understanding the audience you are designing for. They didn't do that.
[deleted]
Ironically, it looks very generic.
DOH. I totally came here to make this very joke. You win, good gentleperson. You win.
The logo reminds me of the old ATT 4G LTE logo https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lcdgiiTwcYs/UYvQNF3qnzI/AAAAAAAAm...
Once the marketing types take over its the beginning of the end.
The new logo actually has its roots in the original logo designed by Renee French.
https://blog.golang.org/gopher/logo.png
Rene French also suggested they use the Gopher, he originally designed for a radio station promotion, as the mascot for the language.
https://blog.golang.org/gopher/logo.png
Rene French also suggested they use the Gopher, he originally designed for a radio station promotion, as the mascot for the language.
Go developers are busy making fancy (or rather, pretty generic and bland) logos and thinking about "brand identities", while developers who use other languages do actual work. Does a programming language really need a logo, a cartoony mascot, an entire "brand guide" pamphlet and a "visual identity"? RMS was right when he said that software industry is more fashion-driven than women's fashion. We see this when developers pick their tools not according to their functionality, but to what is trendy and looks cool at the moment.
I'm pretty sure that Google hires separate people to work on branding and programming.
[deleted]
Honest opinion: Yuck.
Constructive feedback: I prefer the Gopher.
Constructive feedback: I prefer the Gopher.
at start I actually had doubts on go due to the mascot and the naming, like Go -> Google, they name it after the company, another thing they expect to put google in front of it and we have to love it.
why kill the gopher?
And its not that the designs here are bad in isolation; overall the visual identity is very sleek, and I could imagine it working well for something else; RedHat and JetBrains are the first things that come to mind. But for Go, this logo is the one that I acknowledge:
https://blog.golang.org/gopher/logo.png
Funny thing here is that I'm don't even like Go that much, and still I had such strong negative reaction to this branding.