Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: David Sankel (camior_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-18 09:06:27
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Vladimir Batov <
> On 05/18/2016 02:01 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> 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
> Indeed. The only sensible conclusion possible. Moving on.
Oh no you don't.
1. I showed a graph
that has no indications of bad data. It shows reasonable comparative
numbers, uses proper category disambiguators, and has correct labels.
2. Robert showed another graph
illustrated a bug in the system when using the term "C++ Boost". The fact
that it is a bug is demonstrated by a.) investigation of the labels over
the graph indicating "C+Boost" was the term used, and b.) comparing "C++
Boost" to C++ and seeing that "C++ Boost" has more hits, which is not a
3. Folks don't understand how this system works. This can be remedied by
going here <https://support.google.com/trends/?hl=en#topic=6248052>.
These three points *do **not* imply that we should throw out the original
graph. Just because the numbers don't support a particular position doesn't
mean we should throw out all kinds of FUD over the data. The decline of
Boost is real and we should face that reality.
-- David Sankel
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk