From: noemail@basdxcqvbe.com   
      
   On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 16:32:33 -0700 (PDT)   
   Joe Monk  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > > False. C is a follow on of NB which was a follow on of B. See   
   > > article.   
   >   
   > Not False. C is not a follow on of NB .   
   >   
      
   Yes False.  C is a follow on of NB.  Your comprehension failure doesn't   
   change the contents of the rest of the article which confirm this   
   conclusively.   
      
   > "Thus the transition from B to C was contemporaneous with the   
   > creation of a compiler capable of producing programs fast and small   
   > enough to compete with assembly language. I called the   
   > slightly-extended language NB, for `new B.'"   
   >   
   > Even Ritchie says "transition from B to C", not from "NB to C".   
   >   
      
   Yes, but that is a misunderstanding of the meaning of "transition"   
   here.  This appears to me to be an attempt to ignore or be willfully   
   blind to the fact that NB was in between B and C, hence C is a follow   
   on.  He clearly states that NB was in between the two, writes a   
   complete section on it titled "Embryonic C", clearly a glorification   
   and reinterpretation of the past, using NB three times in regards to   
   NB's features.  While he mentions C seven times in that section, not   
   one is in regards to any of NB's features, which is the topic of   
   conversation for that section.  While he admits that it was a "blip",   
   saying that "NB existed so briefly that no full description of it was   
   written."  It existed.  It existed after B and prior to C.   
      
      
   --   
   The Chinese have such difficulty with English ...  The word is not   
   "reunification" but "revenge".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)