C names

[Larry Wall]

In article <4316 at mit-eddie.UUCP> shawn at mit-eddie.UUCP (Shawn McKay) writes:
>
>If you wish to make such large changes, why don't you change the name
>of the language? What berkeley folks use IS NOT C as is documented
>by the K&R book....

Most C's don't correspond to the K&R book.  "C" stands for confusion.

>    ...Which I would expect to be the ONLY reasonable standard
>to be used to define the 'C programming language'...

I presume this means you will repudiate the new C standard when it comes
out shortly.

>                                                  ...Perhaps it's time
>for the 'D' programming language. I'll leave out what I think D should
>stand for.

D for development...E for evolution...F for forward...G for good...

(Actually, a good case can be made that the next language should be
P, for progress.)

Pretty soon we'll wrap around and have A for Ada.  What fun!

Give me progress AND give me standards...
Give me liberty AND give me death...
Give me...

Never mind, I'm in a strange mood today.  For instance:

> Flamers reply at own risk.

Owners at risk reply flame.

Hmm, that almost means something.  Must be Friday.
Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall