Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to Safari
Join our community
Top Pro
•••
Top Pro
•••Top Con
•••
AdaptableUaIldak's Experience
TruthfulVerminus's Experience
Top Pro
•••Top Pro
•••
EnthusiasticHemithea's Experience
Top Pro
•••
Usually, make puts resulting binaries in the same place where it finds sources. In cmake, the recommended way to build is 'out-of-source' — put the product somewhere else. This allows to keep the source tree clean and use faster storage for building (like ramdisks). For more information, visit here. See More
Other build tools need wrapper modules to do certain tasks. The biggest disadvantage of these wrapper modules is that they bind you to a version of that tool. With Make you don't have that problem, there's no need for wrappers and no tools to bind you to a version, you can use any version of Make that you want. See More
"Recursive make" is a common makefile coding pattern which is used to invoke another session of make. Since a session of make only read in one top-level makefile, this is an easy and natural way to build makefiles for projects made of several submodules. But this pattern causes a lot of problems mainly that you need to partition the dependency tree into several smaller trees. This prevents dependencies from being expressed correctly between instances. This also causes parts of the dependency tree to be calculated multiple times which makes performance suffer. This and many other problems related to recursive make are explained very well in a classic article called Recursive Make Considered Harmful. See More
This has been one of the easiest way to build cross-platform C/C++ builds, and it actually works really well! It's very easy to get started and it's actually a very sane system compared to the mess that was CMake. Maybe others have found issues, but from my side, I haven't found anything that would change my mind here. See More
Not only Meson saved me time compared to CMake, which I have used a lot. It gives me clearer separation, a better workflow, readable options and build files, more targets like sanitizers and precompiled headers and Unity builds out of the box. Also, mixing with other languages is way easier since Meson is designed from the start for this use case. Subprojects and cross compilation are fully supported and do not feel like an afterthought Meson supports its own download service to integrate projects from source, though it does not have so many packages at the moment. That said, you can consume CMake projects from Meson. All in all, the best build system that I have ever tried. I do not say this lightly after having tried Make, CMkar, Scons, Waf and Tup in my own projects. See More
Gradle has full integration with Jetbrains IDEA. IDEA understands multi-module Gradle builds and automatically maintains the IDEA modules within the project. You also have the option to run unit tests with either the built-in JUnit/TestNG test runner, or delegate running the test to Gradle using the same visualization as the built-in runner. See More
Since Gradle does not use XML but it uses it's own DSL based on Groovy, Gradle scripts tend to be shorter than other build tools that use XML. Boilerplate code is also considerably small because it's DSL is designed to solve a specific problem: moving the software through its lifecycle starting from compilation into static analysis and testing, packaging and finally deployment. See More
Qbs is the most elegant build system I ever worked with. The language is very easy to learn and to comprehend. Re-using and encapsulating building blocks is straight forward. A lot of unnecessary details are hidden inside the implementation. Dependency tracking is very sophisticated and robust. With Qbs I get to results quickly. A big pro is also its deep integration into Qt Creator. Especially the performance when resolving big projects is good. All in all I must say that CMake looks messy and overly complicated compared to Qbs. See More
You can write code for your build system in Ruby. While not my choice for general programming, Ruby is powerful and expressive. Given some knowledge of Ruby, you can create powerful Rake extensions that result in your average target only needing a few lines in the rakefile in spite of having complex behaviors (Is the library for public consumption, or only for use within the current repo/tier? Compile certain files on certain platforms? Link to libraries published from other repos? etc.). See More