Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: David Sankel (camior_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-17 22:33:09

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Vladimir Batov <
Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> On 05/18/2016 12:22 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:
>
>> On 05/18/2016 12:19 PM, David Sankel wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> I do not believe it's true. I clearly see Search term: "C++ boost"
>>
>
> More so. If one tries to search for "C++ Boost" (as Robert suggested) and
> for "Boost software" as you David suggested you'll immediately see that
> people by far prefer Robert's (I do).

Yes, people prefer c+boost over even C++! (
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=C%2B%2B%20boost%2C%20C%2B%2B&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B6
)

If you move your mouse over the results, you'll see that "C+boost" was what
the system looked for. When you type in "boost" in the search box you'll
get the "Software" grouping disambiguator. cmake doesn't need a
disambiguator. The original graph is a good reflection of reality.