Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: David Sankel (camior_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-17 22:19:19

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 5/17/16 5:37 PM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 4:32:42 PM UTC-5, David Sankel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Robert Ramey <ra..._at_[hidden]
>>> <javascript:>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/17/16 10:27 AM, David Sankel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This means life or death for boost and, frankly,
>>>>>
>>>>> it's been dying over the past few years.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I think we're on a good path.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F034w42%2C%20cmake%2C%20bjam&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B6
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think that is a strong demonstration.
>>
>
> LOL - I'm not convinced.  I loved the display and couldn't resist playing
> around with it.  It only took a few seconds to generate the following:
>
> https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=C%2B%2B%20boost

Nice, you managed to do a search for 'c+boost'. While I find smoothies
interesting, it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.