Standardize the use of std::cout/std::cerr for printing in C++.

[rafa-be]

I had issues with the use of std::printwith LLVM libc++ or with GCC 13:

/host/scaler/scaler/io/ymq/pymod_ymq/utils.h:15:10: fatal error: print: No such file or directory
15 | #include
| ^~~~~~~
compilation terminated.

This standardizes the use of iostreams instead over the whole library.

[gxuu]

I would prefer the printf/fprintf family. Some rationale:

• it's mostly shorter compare to std::cout.
• format string is understandable by most programmer, even those who writes Java.
• easier to substitute when we are ready for std::print.

But, no matter what, this really is minor. Given that you made changes already, I am fine with either way.

[rafa-be]

I would prefer the printf/fprintf family. Some rationale:

* it's mostly shorter compare to `std::cout`.

* format string is understandable by most programmer, even those who writes Java.

* easier to substitute when we are ready for `std::print`.

But, no matter what, this really is minor. Given that you made changes already, I am fine with either way.

Yeah, printf is fine too. It's a little bit more annoying when dealing with C++ objects though (e.g. std::string).

Ideally I'd have prefer std::print but it's not well supported yet :-(.

[gxuu]

I would prefer the printf/fprintf family. Some rationale:

* it's mostly shorter compare to `std::cout`.

* format string is understandable by most programmer, even those who writes Java.

* easier to substitute when we are ready for `std::print`.

But, no matter what, this really is minor. Given that you made changes already, I am fine with either way.

Yeah, printf is fine too. It's a little bit more annoying when dealing with C++ objects though (e.g. std::string).

Ideally I'd have prefer std::print but it's not well supported yet :-(.

The thing is, complicated object prints are supported via std::formatter template specialization. I am not sure if that will be compatible with operator<<. So if we in the future try to support complicate object prints, then it would be easier to to change from printf to std::print compare to changing from std::cout to std::print.

Anyway, let's get this merged. ;)

[sharpener6]

Don't worry about convert to cout/cerr to formatter print style format, you can use codex/claude to do it.

to unify them, use universal logging module, ask codex/claude to change all printing and std::out std::err to universal logging module

[rafa-be]

Don't worry about convert to cout/cerr to formatter print style format, you can use codex/claude to do it.

to unify them, use universal logging module, ask codex/claude to change all printing and std::out std::err to universal logging module

All the codebase uses the logger. These print are either in the examples or in the tests. Do we want to use the logger in these too?

[rafa-be]

Related issue #311

[gxuu]

Why do we not need CXX=$(which g++-14)? Don't we want to keep it to pin the compiler's version?

[rafa-be]

Well it works with GCC-13 now, so there is no actual need to pin it to specific compiler.

[gxuu]

But some behaviours might be different between different compiler versions. If you recall, we actually found one compiler bug for std::expected. Since this is happening in the CI if we run into some problems again then it will be hard to debug. Is there any advantage to not pin the compiler version?