[dminvs]

If it was Borland's compiler suite it may or may not have been perfectly standards-compliant, hence the quotation marks. The Borland suite from the early 90s seemed to be pretty relaxed/forgiving about what was valid C/C++.

My school utilized Turbo C++ 3.0 for instruction (and later 4.5), which implemented some weird subset that was pre-C++98. Plenty of things that I was doing when targeting the Borland compiler barfed terribly when compiled with GCC (or G++).

I'd definitely consider what we were writing in those days "C" or "C++" but not anything that resembles modern software...

[ptspts]

Borland C++ was released before 1993. No wonder it didn't support C++98 at that time.

[coliveira]

Not only that, but Borland also had extensions in their C++ compiler to simplify the development of GUI code (similar but different to the tricks Microsoft also used in their compilers).