Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall
From: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C names
Message-ID: <2022@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-May-85 13:17:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2022
Posted: Fri May 24 13:17:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 25-May-85 22:23:35 EDT
References: <4316@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Reply-To: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Distribution: net.sources,net.lang.c
Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica
Lines: 38
Summary: 

In article <4316@mit-eddie.UUCP> shawn@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