wasted spent like a month or so trying to get two software libraries to work.
They partly worked, but at some point produced only unplausible results.
That might have very well been my fault.
The third one worked right out of the box and it's the one I should have chosen to begin with. The lack of problems with this library suggests that there was either something wrong with the other two, the setup, the system or whatever.
Either way, the conclusion is that I would not suggest to try the first two libraries and go with the third one, no matter how tempting it is to try the two.
I would like to include this in my thesis, because it appears to be valuable information. On the other hand, I'm not a software expert and I might simply have done things totally wrong, which is why those libraries didn't work for me. But despite some effort, I could not find documentation on what could be the problem.
Basically, what I have to say is this:
Tried X and Y. Didn't work. Don't know why. Not recommended. Use Z instead. Works perfectly.
Is it a good idea to include such information? It's not backed up by any reference and I cannot include all the related information about the details to reproduce the problem. Partly because I don't know them and partly because that's not what my work is about. I'm also afraid that including this information will make me look incompetent.
How should I include this information? I think the best thing to do is to state that under the overall time constraints getting either of the two libraries to work was not explored any further, which is what actually happened. But then this might look like I didn't spent my time efficiently.
Maybe I'm just too much concerned that there will be only glass-half-empty people reading this, trying to see the problem in it.