Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

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 <
Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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
>> discussion?
>>
>
> Indeed. The only sensible conclusion possible. Moving on.

Oh no you don't.

   1. I showed a graph
   <https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F034w42%2C%20cmake%2C%20bjam&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B6>
   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
   <https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=C%2B%2B%20boost> that
   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
   reasonable thing.
   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