If I may pontificate a bit, I was a major contributor to the success of C++. Back in the 80s, I was looking for a way to enhance my C compiler. I looked at Obj

If I may pontificate a bit, I was a major contributor to the success of C++. Back in the 80s, I was looking for a way to enhance my C compiler. I looked at Objective-C and C++. There was a newsgroup for each, and each had about the same amount of traffic. I had to pick one. Objective-C required a license to implement it. I asked AT&T if I needed a license to implement C++, and could I call it C++. AT&T's lawyer laughed and said feel free to do whatever you want. So that decided it for me. At the time, C++ did not exist on the PC other than the awkward, nearly unusable cfront (which translated C++ to C). At the time, 90% of programming was done on the PC. I implemented it. It was the first native C++ compiler for the PC. (It is arguable that it was the first native C++ compiler, depending on whether a gcc beta is considered a release.) The usage of it exploded. The newsgroup traffic for C++ zoomed upwards, and Objective-C interest fell away. C++ built critical mass because of Zortech C++. Borland dropped their plans for an OOP language and went for Turbo C++. Microsoft also had a secret OOP C language called C*, which was also abandoned in favor of implementing C++. And the rest is history! P.S. cfront on the PC was unusable because it was 1) incredibly slow and 2) did not support near/far pointers which was required for the mixed PC memory models. P.P.S. Bjarne Stroustrup never mentioned any of this in his book "The Design and Evolution of C++".