>C was a clear example of "worse is better" with some kind of topological defect in the design such that there's a circularity in the K&R book that makes it con

>C was a clear example of "worse is better" with some kind of topological defect in the design such that there's a circularity in the K&R book that makes it confusing if you read it all the way through. Aww you can't just leave us hanging like this. What's the paradox?