Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-18 00:01:08

On 5/17/16 8:49 PM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
>
>> On May 17, 2016, at 9:52 PM, Vladimir Batov <Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>
>> On 05/18/2016 12:33 PM, David Sankel wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Vladimir Batov <
>>> Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Thank you for pointing it out. Indeed, the pop-up box does show "C+boost". Still, the "Search term" box shows "C++ Boost". You seem to outright dismiss the information provided by the "Search term" box and to present the pop-up box info as the sole truth. I am far from convinced it's justified. In fact, the "q=C%2B%2B" seems to indicate that it indeed searched for C++.
>>
>>> When you type in "boost" in the search box you'll get the "Software" grouping disambiguator.
>>
>> You seem to trust that filtering component working flawlessly. I am again not that sure. :-)
>>
>> More so, the numbers shown in that pop-up box are questionable... not to say outright bogus. :-)
>
> The top queries for boost software(as David suggested) show things like ‘boost thread’ or ‘boost python’, which seem to be very relevant search queries, however, the ‘C++ boost’ search show top queries like ‘vitamin C’ or ‘hepatitis C’ which is completely off track.

Actually this has been entertaining on a number of levels.

Could we agree that this particular tool won't be of much use to our 
discussion?

Robert Ramey