hardin@hpindda.HP.COM (John Hardin) (01/19/89)
/ akk2@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Atul Kacker) : ... "stuff", which looks >remarkably like "find" in terms of command line options; and probably >would have been called "find" except for the standard MSDOS program >called "find" (which SHOULD have been called GREP!). ---------- Does anyone else find this statement funny? Not that it doesn't make perfect sense. After all, it's a hassle to find the old familiar utilities have been given new names on a new system. This bound to create confusion among those (like all of us here) who use both. Still, Unix is infamous for cryptic acronyms and I got a few chuckles from reading that a utility called FIND should have been called GREP. Reminds me of an article I was reading the other day about how AWK is becoming OAWK because NAWK is becoming AWK. :-) :-) :-) John Hardin hardin%hpindda@hplabs.hp.com
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (01/20/89)
->called "find" (which SHOULD have been called GREP!). - -Does anyone else find this statement funny? Not that it doesn't make [ ... ] -Still, Unix is infamous for cryptic acronyms and I got a few chuckles -from reading that a utility called FIND should have been called GREP. 'grep' isn't cryptic -- it _obviously_ stands for General Regular Expression Parser. (Or maybe it stands for g/reg-exp/p, if you speak ed, ex, or vi.) 'find' IS cryptic -- you tell me what it stands for! :-) :-) :-) :-) Seriously, 'find' should not be called 'grep' unless your find knows about wildcards in its strings. Mine doesn't. -- This brain intentionally left blank.