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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
Precedence: bulk

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.