From: noemail@basdxcqvbe.com   
      
   On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 10:21:37 -0700 (PDT)   
   Joe Monk  wrote:   
      
   > > 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.   
   >   
      
   Wow, even with this additional info, you still present a comprehension   
   failure.  They clearly state that new language named NB was the   
   successor to B, which was then later renamed C.  I.e., the first part of   
   your statement that "C is a successor to B ..." is false.  NB was the   
   successor to B, until they decided to rename it.   
      
      
   --   
   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)