It isn't more complicated than printf, which is also close to being a generic.
PutLine("The number is " & num);
printf("The number is %zu\n", num); PutLine("The number is " & num);
printf("The number is %zu\n", num);and then
int_io.putline(num);
with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO;
with Ada.Integer_Text_IO; use Ada.Integer_Text_IO;
...
PutLine(num);
[0] https://www.adahome.com/LRM/83/RM/rm83html/lrm-14-03.html#14... (Ada 83 Manual)
Languages with these modules and import statements should be burned. (Starting with Python.)
For pete's sake, couldn't they at least combine this with and use into one keyword so you don't have to repeat yourself?
Or can't use be made to forgive a missing with and just get on with the show?
Do defense contracts pay by the byte or what?
Nothing different than std in C++.
Though a single use declaration will get you the identifier in C++, the right header file has to be #included. At least it's possible for a single include to bring in lots of material:
#include <biglib> // just one of these
use bigfoo::bar; // one per identifier
use bigwidget::zark;
class foo {
foo();
~foo();
};
foo::foo()
{
}
foo::~foo()
{
}
(The C++ people are self-conscious about verbosity, and trying to fix the problem; unfortunately, in wrongheaded ways that are making the language worse.)
So far as I can tell, you dislike how verbose the Ada "hello world" is, because it supports namespaces, and uses them. That wouldn't be something I'd agree with, especially not when dealing with any program of significant size.
It's the only benchmark that we have any kind of analysis for (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3188171_The_Confoun...), which correlates to less defects and less time per feature. Less code is better. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I think it's a valid criticism. YMMV
Holy crap; are they really saying that all the various correlations seen between numerous software metrics and fault proneness are actually the effect of nothing but raw size?
That's so intuitive. Because in our daily experience, almost all reasonable approaches to to various aspects of program organization actually work fine in programs of a size that one programmer can comfortably fully understand and maintain. Even for any technique reviled as "bad" and discouraged in coding standards, there are counterexamples of it working fine. Those counterexamples are in the context of small programs, so we are told, "just wait, that approach will burn you in a big program". But it looks like what will burn you is just the size of that big program, no matter what techniques you wield, whether blessed or not.
That little paper you pointed to there (thank you) looks pretty darn important.
class foo {
foo() = default;
~foo() = default;
};
The idiomatic way to write your class is just:
class foo { };
The purpose of the C++11 default mechanism is to request a default implementation of a special function in situations when it would be suppressed. For instance
class foo {
public:
foo(int x); // this will suppress the default constructor
foo() = default; // this requests it back
};That it's as easy as printf demonstrates the changes in thinking to today fairly well.