3 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoDid 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 agoI 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.