> considering the programming language landscape at the time, if we leave C++ aside, it would be more correct to say Smalltalk I'm quite sure Smalltalk didn't

> considering the programming language landscape at the time, if we leave C++ aside, it would be more correct to say Smalltalk I'm quite sure Smalltalk didn't have a "new" mapped to malloc, and also most of other stuff that C++ had the way it had. Nevertheless, Smalltalk was also never something performant, it was more "an experiment" not an environment for many commercial products. Regarding the "landscape" you are right that there were some people that influenced the "dogma" of "how C++ should be written" that actually didn't even know C++ or the consequences of their promotion of some "OOP techniques." Horrible stuff, if you asked me, was good only for the clueless managers and buzzword catchers, but never resulted in efficient applications, where the policy was to "do as the promoters say."