Pros of vcpkg

• Simplifies dependency management for C/C++ projects
• Supports cross-platform builds and multiple toolchains
• Integrates well with Visual Studio and other IDEs

Cons of vcpkg

• Limited to C and C++ libraries, while CMake supports multiple languages
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to CMake's built-in features
• Less mature and has a smaller community compared to CMake

Code Comparison

vcpkg

{
  "name": "example",
  "version-string": "1.0.0",
  "dependencies": [
    "boost",
    "openssl"
  ]
}

CMake

cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.10)
project(example)
find_package(Boost REQUIRED)
find_package(OpenSSL REQUIRED)

Summary

vcpkg focuses on package management and dependency resolution for C/C++ projects, while CMake is a more comprehensive build system generator. vcpkg excels in simplifying library management, especially for Windows developers, but CMake offers broader language support and more mature build configuration options. Both tools can be used together in projects, with vcpkg handling dependencies and CMake managing the overall build process.

Pros of Meson

• Faster build times due to its optimized design and use of Ninja backend
• Simpler and more concise syntax, making build scripts easier to read and maintain
• Better cross-platform support, especially for Windows

Cons of Meson

• Smaller ecosystem and fewer available modules compared to CMake
• Less widespread adoption in large-scale projects
• Steeper learning curve for developers already familiar with CMake

Code Comparison

CMake example:

cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.10)
project(MyProject)
add_executable(myapp main.cpp)
target_link_libraries(myapp PRIVATE somelib)

Meson example:

project('MyProject', 'cpp')
executable('myapp', 'main.cpp', dependencies: dependency('somelib'))

Both CMake and Meson are popular build systems for C and C++ projects. CMake has been around longer and has wider adoption, especially in larger projects. It offers more flexibility and a vast ecosystem of modules. Meson, on the other hand, focuses on simplicity and speed, making it attractive for smaller to medium-sized projects and developers who prefer a more straightforward build system configuration.

Pros of Bazel

• Faster build times for large projects due to advanced caching and parallelization
• Better support for multi-language projects and cross-platform builds
• More precise dependency management with fine-grained control

Cons of Bazel

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Smaller ecosystem and community compared to CMake
• Less widespread adoption, especially in existing projects

Code Comparison

CMake example:

cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.10)
project(MyProject)
add_executable(MyApp main.cpp)
target_link_libraries(MyApp MyLib)

Bazel example:

cc_binary(
    name = "MyApp",
    srcs = ["main.cpp"],
    deps = [":MyLib"],
)

Both CMake and Bazel are powerful build systems, but they have different strengths. CMake is more widely adopted and easier to learn, making it a good choice for many projects. Bazel, on the other hand, offers superior performance and scalability for large, complex projects, especially those involving multiple languages or platforms. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project and team.

Pros of Premake

• Simpler syntax and easier to learn, using Lua scripting language
• More flexible and customizable build configurations
• Faster execution time for generating project files

Cons of Premake

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to CMake
• Less widespread adoption in large-scale projects
• Limited built-in support for certain platforms and toolchains

Code Comparison

CMake example:

cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.10)
project(MyProject)
add_executable(MyApp main.cpp)
target_link_libraries(MyApp MyLibrary)

Premake example:

workspace "MyProject"
   configurations { "Debug", "Release" }

project "MyApp"
   kind "ConsoleApp"
   language "C++"
   files { "**.cpp", "**.h" }
   links { "MyLibrary" }

Both CMake and Premake are popular build configuration tools, but they cater to different preferences and project needs. CMake offers a more extensive ecosystem and wider adoption, while Premake provides a simpler syntax and greater flexibility. The choice between the two often depends on project requirements, team expertise, and personal preference.