23 Jun
2004
23 Jun
'04
11:16 a.m.
In message <006a01c4597c$9b687ef0$5b01a8c0@athlon>, "Antonio Carlini"
writes:
IIRC Dennis Ritchie's HOPL II paper on C indicates that the D vs.
P question was left intentionally ambiguous.
Ok, I just looked it up:
"I decided to follow the single-letter style and called it C, leaving
open the question whether the name represented a progression through
the alphabet or through the letters in BCPL."
Of course, it's all academic. It's hard to imagine that any
language could have a meaningful claim to the title of "successor
of C." Everything else is "another language" (which is not to
say that no language could ever be better for some applications).
Brian L. Stuart
I thought the
puzzle was whether C's successor would
be *D* or *P*...
It will be D (or D++, I forget the exact name).