I'm confused about your post. Was, "it could have been so much better," referring to Go's brand guide? And if so, how does that jive with "the worse the brandin

I'm confused about your post. Was, "it could have been so much better," referring to Go's brand guide? And if so, how does that jive with "the worse the branding, the better"? Are you saying a sophisticated brand agency would intentionally brand worse because it's the expectation for a successful programming language? If I'm a design agency, I would reject bad design even if it's expected and commonplace. Although, there might be good features in the bad design, which I think should be kept. In the end, this brand guide is not just about the language. The first section is all about identifying the audience and helping communication in the community, which I think is more important than the details mentioned later on (colors/typography/logo/etc). > Go was created by a team of programmers who value honest, open communication, without exaggeration or excess. Our dialogue with one another and the broader community adheres to the following I don't really believe that this statement is true, but I think expressing this aspiration is important. I think the Rust language website is quite good too, since it has all the details of the code of conduct and contribution info, but it's not a fair comparison since it's a superset of brand guidelines. My complaint would be that the Rust website actually has a far superior visual design than the Go website, but I don't think there's a problem Go's brand book. My 2 cents, or 5. :\