From: joemonk64@gmail.com   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Sorry, but my reading comprehension on the subject from the Bell Systems   
   Technical Journals of 1978 (much closer in time) tell me that C is actually NB   
   renamed. Not a successor.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   See page 1995 of the Bell Systems Technical Journal, Volume 57, Issue 6.   
      
   The authors of that article (Ritchie, Kernighan, and Lesk), in 1978, said that   
   C was NB renamed, not a successor to NB.   
      
   "Thus, the problems evidenced by B led us to design a new language that (after   
   a brief period under the name NB) was dubbed C."   
      
   So I stand on my statement. C is a successor to B, not NB.   
      
   Joe   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)