Why don't gcc and MS C++ count? I think gcc was a little behind yes, but it caught up. Also I think there were several other independent C++ vendors in the 90's, whose names I don't recall.

Just out of my mind, as an early C++ adopter (1993).

Turbo C++, Borland C++, Watcom C++, Green Hills C++, Microsoft C++ 7.0, djgpp for MS-DOS.

Turbo C++, Borland C++, Watcom C++, Green Hills C++, Microsoft C++ 7.0, C++ Builder, Symantec C++, Metrowerks C++, C++ Builder, Visual C++ for Windows 3.x onwards.

MPW C++, Metrowerks C++, Visual C++ for Mac OS.

Borland C++, CSet++, Visual Age for C++ for OS/2.

aC++ for HP-UX, xlC++ for Aix, Sun Forte C++ for Solaris.

gcc for most UNIX systems.

These are just the ones I remember without having to do a search.

Writing portable C++ code in those days was quite an adventure, specially since we only had the CFront followed by C++ ARM as standards, while ANSI/ISO were working on the first actual standard.

Sure, but you're not really disagreeing with me. I was saying that C++ wasn't dominated by a particular implementation, i.e. it wasn't a "fake standard".

It was and is a standard that MANY independent implementations tried to conform to!