As an example, the Python, PHP and Java logos are very distinctive in their own ways, and when you're sifting through YouTube tutorials as a beginner, seeing the logos pop up in thumbnails can help you spot material that's relevant to your learning.
1. Shouldn't we aspire to let the community themselves decide if their passions would be furthered by a recognizable visual identity, and not impose our perspective on them in a patronizing way?
2. Your statement mostly conveys that you haven't learned much about the power of branding in general. A logo is not a brand, but often stands as the most recognizable avatar of a brand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO4te2QNsHY
It's nearly impossible to develop a healthy brand that doesn't have a recognizable logo. And you need a healthy brand to be successful in marketing that brand.
I happen to believe that OSS contributors deserve to see that their projects put their best foot forward so that as many people can benefit as possible. Since I know Tim O'Reilly wants this as well, hopefully he'll be happy to sign off on this request.
Is Proctor&Gamble a healthy brand? Is its logo recognizable, were the big "P&G" not it?
(As another example, I recognize the Nestlé name brand, but don't recognize its logo with the three birds and the nest.)
If it isn't a healthy brand, how would you describe the Proctor&Gamble brand? Unhealthy? And how would changing that brand improve things?
I ask because it seems that healthy retail brand ends up with a recognizable logo in large part simply because so many people know it, making it hard to disentangle how important the logo is vs. the slogan, the product name, its effectiveness, and other properties.
And it would seem those retail brand principles apply less to, for example, multi-national conglomerates.
To be clear, that doesn't mean a recognized logo won't help a programming language advocacy and support group. I'm instead pointing out that I can think of quite a few seemingly healthy brands with forgettable logos, while you suggest that's nearly impossible.
(To be doubly clear, it's nearly impossible to establish a well-known brand in the first place, either with or without a recognizable logo.)
> Logos are trademarks of companies
At least in the US, that's incorrect. Private persons people may hold trademarks too.
That trademark my be registered with the federal or state government, but even without registration there's still a common law trademark.
If you start selling artisan lemonade from your sidewalk (make sure you have the proper licenses first!) and make a distinctive logo for it, then - poof! - that logo is a common law trademark. No paperwork needed.
Even if it's the trademark is not enforced, it's still a logo. A 5th grade sports team can decide to call themselves "The Flying Stone", make a design with a stone bearing wings, and put it on their shirts. Poof, that's a logo.
> national flags aren't language logos
... why would they? The US doesn't have an official language. Many countries have multiple official languages. Most languages don't have a strong association with a single country.
And Esperanto has had a flag for over a century, representing supranational solidarity.
edit: php logo from 2000 is another notable early example
By defacto really, because that is what I am used to seeing online.
(And yes, ‘single implementation must be interpreted a bit loosely. Python qualifies, for example)
What's the logo for Esperanto?