Could you give a few examples? It’d explain what you mean more easily.
Named types are much older than OOP (Algol 68 for example).
Do I understand correctly: you say that not naming each class with prefix ‘C’ is an 8-bit era habit?
what do you think about C++11?
constexpr, initializer lists, lambdas…
Not exactly…
I mean that differentating CSomothing and SSomething is a habit from very early user friendly languages, because then programmer was forced to code-type variables for gaining general benefit of language which were user friendly eg. no need to declare variable (first use of variable was an informal declaration, and no type keyword was needed because type was know by the name of var)
I don’t argue or call something bad, I just smell an anachronism which incorporates in one of devs’ mind. well maybe another flower smells 
moreover C prefix is leftover from the 8bit era but its an useful idiom - CSomething is a type not variable, this idiom makes logic in naming types - but differentating between CSomething, SSomething, ESomething etc. is just anachronism where more stress is on mechanic of language than logic convention… but welll C suggest Class… I would better use TSomething but C idiom is much more frequently used…
Sorry if I’m harsh, or I’m stating inadequate conotations… I just well remember BASIC on my AMSTRAD CPC6128 - I was programming on it since i was 7 and during a few years (I can now write simple program without looking in instruction) - and stating those habit made me thought of those Good Old PLatform again.
well if I made offtopic earlier I say more - different times = different technics - and state an example MM9 was enforcing new technology too early - MM8’s 2.5D technics was perfect in these times - but 3do enforced full3d and made worst might&magic game - what they expected strong was really weak. well why not make experience enlongment? C or T idiom comes from early habits but makes same benefit. using C (class), S (struct), E (Enum), D (TypeDef) - each another is habit over benefit - so it makes anachronism.
I think it’s mostly a step in the right direction. Unfortunately C++ has already too many features and I’d like to see a new, redesigned “superset of C”, giving the feel that its author knows Lisp and type theory.