> But either way wouldn't the importance for the field of computing in this case be more on the application of the algorithm and not who published first?

Separate issue. My objection was solely to correct the incorrect claim that Tukey invented the FFT. And this is in no way meant to disparage what Tukey did accomplish, only so that the history reads correctly.

> I don't think it's completely unfair to give some credit to one who later rediscovers and popularizes that algorithm.

Yes, but describing him as the inventor goes too far.