5 ms·

But he doesn't track down the source of the quote, only of a famous usage of it by JWZ. If you read to the end of the post, it's clear that no one knows who ori

by gruseom 17y ago

But he doesn't track down the source of the quote, only of a famous usage of it by JWZ. If you read to the end of the post, it's clear that no one knows who originated it, but it was in .sig files already in 1988. Edit: simple googling reveals that David Tilbrook took credit for a variant of the line in 1989 (http://grosskurth.ca/bib/1989/tilbrook.pdf http://grosskurth.ca/bib/1989/tilbrook.pdf, search for "awk"). Since that's long before anyone would have had reason to misappropriate it, I'd say that's pretty convincing. Friedl, as the author of a (the) book on regexes, is only interested in the regex version of the quote. But that one is obviously just a derivative. Edit 2: I attempted to email Tilbrook to see if he wants to comment on the joke. If I get a reply I'll post it here. Silly, perhaps, but this kind of folklore is fun. Edit 3: The email bounced. Is there an HNer with a premium LinkedIn account who wants to message him for us? I found his profile but it won't let me do that without paying (no way in hell). If so, email me (address in profile) and I'll send over what I wrote.

telemachos 17y ago
I'm not sure what you're claiming to have discovered via simple googling, but the Friedl article explicitly discusses Tilbrook and the awk quotation. Tilbrook is exactly who is credited in the 1988 sig that Friedl mentions.
- gruseom 17y ago
  Did I really make my point that badly? What you're saying is obvious; that's where I started. The point is that the end of Friedl's post shows that the quote antedates JWZ, but he's not really interested in tracking it down any further, presumably because it was JWZ who applied it to regexes, which is Friedl's area of interest. Personally, I'd rather know the origin of the quote itself. I like knowing the sources of things. As for what I was "claiming to have discovered" (though I hope not nearly so pompously as that), I would have thought that was obvious too: additional evidence that the line was Tilbrook's. I noticed later that a commenter to the OP cited the same link I did, so it's pretty findable.
  - telemachos 17y ago
    I don't know if you made your point badly or not, but your tone surpised/confused me. You begin by saying, "But he doesn't track down the source of the quote, only of a famous usage of it by JWZ." Later you add that Friedl as the author of such and such "is only interested..." in so and so (my emphasis). In both cases, I read that as criticism - as if Friedl failed to do the important thing that you were now doing. In this post again you you say that Friedl is "not really interested" in the source. But, in fact, Friedl did track down the source of the original quotation - to a reasonable degree of certainty. It's the same source you found. So I guess I don't see what Friedl didn't track down.

by gruseom 17y ago

telemachos 17y ago

I'm not sure what you're claiming to have discovered via simple googling, but the Friedl article explicitly discusses Tilbrook and the awk quotation. Tilbrook is exactly who is credited in the 1988 sig that Friedl mentions.

gruseom 17y ago
Did I really make my point that badly? What you're saying is obvious; that's where I started. The point is that the end of Friedl's post shows that the quote antedates JWZ, but he's not really interested in tracking it down any further, presumably because it was JWZ who applied it to regexes, which is Friedl's area of interest. Personally, I'd rather know the origin of the quote itself. I like knowing the sources of things. As for what I was "claiming to have discovered" (though I hope not nearly so pompously as that), I would have thought that was obvious too: additional evidence that the line was Tilbrook's. I noticed later that a commenter to the OP cited the same link I did, so it's pretty findable.
- telemachos 17y ago
  I don't know if you made your point badly or not, but your tone surpised/confused me. You begin by saying, "But he doesn't track down the source of the quote, only of a famous usage of it by JWZ." Later you add that Friedl as the author of such and such "is only interested..." in so and so (my emphasis). In both cases, I read that as criticism - as if Friedl failed to do the important thing that you were now doing. In this post again you you say that Friedl is "not really interested" in the source. But, in fact, Friedl did track down the source of the original quotation - to a reasonable degree of certainty. It's the same source you found. So I guess I don't see what Friedl didn't track down.