If you want a discussion on the overall design of C and your opinion of it create a separate thread and i (and others) will be more than happy to engage you there.
> It rather means that Ritchie took it from B and didn't feel like it should change ... Isn't that accidental enough?
That is not called "accidental" but a "design decision".
> In any case Ritchie clearly didn't think far into this particular change,
That is just your opinion and not borne out from Ritchie's own writings and what we can infer from it.
> `int a;` and `a int;` would have been equally okay under this principle,
No, the decision to have "int a" was already done and only a "pointer to int a" was being thought of leading to a variable-centric view.
> Some languages are also only syntactically similar to C because its block syntax did have some nice syntactic property (known as "curly-brace languages" nowadays). Those superficial similarities can't imply your claim
> In any measure, that Concurrent C language is not as notable as other concurrent languages based on or influenced by C.
The point was not popularity nor standardization but the domain into which C was extended. That is why i gave the three specific examples one for each important domain.
> There are a lot of extension languages that are NOT based on C or C++.
That is not the point. I am talking about using C as a "Core/Kernel language" in the design of other languages. No other language (other than the Lisp family) comes close to C in versatility and eventual success here.
> It rather means that Ritchie took it from B and didn't feel like it should change ... Isn't that accidental enough?
That is not called "accidental" but a "design decision".
> In any case Ritchie clearly didn't think far into this particular change,
That is just your opinion and not borne out from Ritchie's own writings and what we can infer from it.
> `int a;` and `a int;` would have been equally okay under this principle,
No, the decision to have "int a" was already done and only a "pointer to int a" was being thought of leading to a variable-centric view.
> Some languages are also only syntactically similar to C because its block syntax did have some nice syntactic property (known as "curly-brace languages" nowadays). Those superficial similarities can't imply your claim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C-family_programming_l...
> In any measure, that Concurrent C language is not as notable as other concurrent languages based on or influenced by C.
The point was not popularity nor standardization but the domain into which C was extended. That is why i gave the three specific examples one for each important domain.
> There are a lot of extension languages that are NOT based on C or C++.
That is not the point. I am talking about using C as a "Core/Kernel language" in the design of other languages. No other language (other than the Lisp family) comes close to C in versatility and eventual success here.