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 <
> 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:
>>> 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++! (
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk