Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

On 5/17/16 8:49 PM, Paul Fultz II wrote:

...

On May 17, 2016, at 9:52 PM, Vladimir Batov 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@constrainttec.com> 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