| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f |
| X-Received: | by 10.58.238.199 with SMTP id vm7mr14431622vec.17.1385644719387; |
| Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:18:39 -0800 (PST) | |
| X-Received: | by 10.182.118.170 with SMTP id kn10mr420248obb.20.1385644719355; |
| Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:18:39 -0800 (PST) | |
| Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
| Date: | Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:18:39 -0800 (PST) |
| In-Reply-To: | <op.w69crqul5zc71u@localhost> |
| Complaints-To: | groups-abuse AT google DOT com |
| Injection-Info: | glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=37.197.167.116; |
| posting-account=O4PeigoAAAAxZv2r8tNE88JIfXb1PYZ9 | |
| NNTP-Posting-Host: | 37.197.167.116 |
| References: | <0404a92b-e194-4e75-97b5-58c8e5b3c076 AT googlegroups DOT com> |
| <52957941 DOT 9050203 AT iki DOT fi> <57ae09cc-bc48-4dcf-978d-9078096b2127 AT googlegroups DOT com> | |
| <bfnhrrF6qghU1 AT mid DOT dfncis DOT de> <82676ab0-7e81-4b89-bc7a-e3360d6c3b93 AT googlegroups DOT com> | |
| <op DOT w69crqul5zc71u AT localhost> | |
| User-Agent: | G2/1.0 |
| MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
| Message-ID: | <6333d7b8-7e16-4749-aaa1-e3b1ead99a53@googlegroups.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Using DJGPP for C++ DOS development today? |
| From: | John Davidson <codewhakker AT gmail DOT com> |
| Injection-Date: | Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:18:39 +0000 |
| Bytes: | 1967 |
| Lines: | 8 |
| To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
| DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
| Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
| Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
| X-Mailing-List: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
| X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
Rod Pemberton wrote: > Why are you using a 386 anyway? > Seriously, spending money is the easiest solution. Actually, using a modern machine and a modern language is another solution :) It's just a hobby project, so I thought I'd look into the options of using C++. I have an old 386 and it would be fun to have a reason to do some low level assembly stuff again. It seems like my best option with the C++ route would be to settle for C++98. Doesn't seem all that bad since I've gotten a feeling that one really ought to know the old stuff to understand the reasoning behind C++11. Thanks guys.
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |