[otabdeveloper1]

> The STL was a last-minute addition to the standard library before C++98.

C++ without a standard C++ library is not really C++.

> No, it was because Bjarne wanted features from Simula whilst still generating fast code.

Yeah, but Simula is somewhat its own thing, before the OOP madness.

> Again, look at Qt. Look at CERN's ROOT. Java looks a lot like it does because that's how C++ code was written at the time.

Only because C++ was the only thing available at the time, so people twisted it into 'OOP', despite the fact that C++ was very a poor fit for 'OOP'.

[AnimalMuppet]

>> The STL was a last-minute addition to the standard library before C++98.

> C++ without a standard C++ library is not really C++.

You seem to be missing the point, which is that there was a time (two decades!) when the C++ standard library existed, but didn't include the STL.

> Only because C++ was the only thing available at the time, so people twisted it into 'OOP', despite the fact that C++ was very a poor fit for 'OOP'.

You are completely mistaken on your history here. C++ was intended to be "C with classes" from day one.

[otabdeveloper1]

"OOP" is not "X with classes".

"Classes" is a low-level thing that you'd need for implementing many language features. Including things like 'abstract data types' of the ML kind.

Good C++ style has always viewed "OOP" as something highly suspect and hacky.

(This didn't apply to "classes" in the C++ vein, which are mostly about pre/post-conditions and RAII.)