- My post wasn't meant to be interpeted as being emotional. I was trying to get the point across.
- The AMC was not released as an article showing "look, we did something really cool and innovative". It was released as a tool that programmers can use so that their code becomes better. As such, it really does not have to uphold the standards that scientific journals articles have to. I haven't looked at it recently, but I don't think it credits even the specific people at NI who wrote it, and that's probably on purpose.
- Even if you would say that it would be considered polite to reference the source, what makes you say that you're the source? Isn't it possible that someone else did this before you or that whoever wrote the AMC came up with it independently?
All that said, I do agree that if someone bases something on something else which is non-obvious and then PRESENTS their something, it would be appropriate to reference the original work. I have done this many times when posting here and elsewhere.
___________________
Try to take over the world!
