This is just one of those coincidences you find in logo and identity design, especially when you’re building a logo out of simple shapes.<p>Not sure what's being suggested here. Is the implication that the logo is a ripoff or that the logo wasn't properly vetted against existing IDs?<p>Out of a bajillion logos, there is one that looks similar to the new haskell logo. WOW.
This logo was chosen by a vote of the community. Here are the other choices.<p><a href="http://www.haskell.org/logos/poll.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.haskell.org/logos/poll.html</a><p>Multiple people came up with this same design independently, because its meaningful: a combination of a lambda and the bind operator, >>=, two of the most fundamental operators in Haskell.<p>Anyway this was months ago. And if you want to point a fail-finger, point it at the guy who chose >>= for the bind operator. "LOL yer operater looks like the train logo!" (And I'm being facetious. That operator is awesome.)
I kinda like it. Its nonglossy and simple, opposite to most amatuer stuff these days. But i like the amtrack one more which is kinda similar in shape but tries to visullay communicate something completly different - so whats the point of comparing these two?! They are not very much alike if you go into the details.