You don't actually seem to be addressing the quoted text... but I can reply to your arguments. Sure, it would be ideal if there were a new book on C which did

You don't actually seem to be addressing the quoted text... but I can reply to your arguments. Sure, it would be ideal if there were a new book on C which did a better job of explaining some of the developments since K&R 2ed was written. If that book exists, I'm not aware of it. All of the books I've seen recommended are either too long, or poorly written. K&R's strong advantage isn't that it's short, it's that it's very strong pedagogically. A "how do I learn C?" thread comes up on HN about once a month. In each of these threads, people will steer people clear of K&R, quoting something or another about how K&R isn't appropriate for this day and age (note: you do not explain why you think it isn't appropriate!). The tacit assumption here is that you can only read one book, or that if you read a book which isn't "perfect", you are somehow tainting yourself with corrupted knowledge. I think this is nonsense. An important meta-skill for learning is the ability to discern between good and bad information. The only way to build that skill is by consulting multiple sources. Note that in my actual reply to OP, I don't specifically advocate for reading K&R, but instead to take a multipronged approach where you primarily draw from whatever learning medium you're most comfortable with. Most people I know that are in their early 20s or younger prefer learning from videos (I'm a math teacher and have lots of experience with people this age).