From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,FROM_ADDR_WS,
	INVALID_DATE,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,e19df7326de95f42,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e19df7326de95f42,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 10db24,e19df7326de95f42,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,e19df7326de95f42,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-12-08 15:16:37 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!sundog.tiac.net!news.kei.com!newshost.marcam.com!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!ames!newsfeed.gsfc.nasa.gov!usenet
From: Curtis Emerson
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu
Subject: Why don't large companies use C/C++/OOP?
Date: 8 Dec 1994 22:37:16 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Message-ID: <3c81qs$qj7@paperboy.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: Curtis.Emerson@gsfc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: next532-9.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Keywords: MIS
Xref: bga.com comp.lang.ada:8433 comp.lang.c:33935 comp.lang.c++:40220
 comp.edu:2383
Date: 1994-12-08T22:37:16+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Untried and/or untrue?

>From The X Journal, November-December 1994, pg 6 (a very C/C++ oriented  
magazine from SIGS Pulications, which also publishes the C++ Report and 
Journal of OOP):

Forrester Research in Cambridge Massachusetts surveyed MIS executives 
from 51 of the Fortune 1000 companies.  Only 12% of the software staff  
were experienced in C programming, and only 3% in OOP.
--

I haven't read the study, but probably only means that many companies 
are outsourcing their MIS software development or buying COTS.  And 
those companies left which haven't gone those routes have a large  
mainframe legacy they are loathe to re-engineer.

Would anyone who has actually read the report care to comment?

Curtis