Pros of Pants

• Simpler configuration and faster initial setup
• Better support for Python projects and ecosystems
• More intuitive and user-friendly command-line interface

Cons of Pants

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Bazel
• Less support for polyglot projects and complex build scenarios
• Fewer integrations with third-party tools and services

Code Comparison

Bazel BUILD file:

java_library(
    name = "my_lib",
    srcs = glob(["src/main/java/**/*.java"]),
    deps = [
        "@maven//:com_google_guava_guava",
    ],
)

Pants BUILD file:

python_library(
    name="my_lib",
    sources=["**/*.py"],
    dependencies=[
        "3rdparty/python:requests",
    ],
)

Both Bazel and Pants are build systems designed to handle large-scale software projects. Bazel, developed by Google, offers a more comprehensive solution for polyglot projects and complex build scenarios. It has a larger community and ecosystem, with extensive integrations and support for various languages and platforms.

Pants, on the other hand, focuses on simplicity and ease of use, particularly for Python projects. It provides a more intuitive command-line interface and faster initial setup, making it attractive for teams looking for a straightforward build system.

While Bazel excels in handling complex, multi-language projects, Pants shines in its simplicity and Python ecosystem support. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs and complexity of your project.

Pros of Gradle

• More flexible and extensible build system with a rich plugin ecosystem
• Easier to learn and use, especially for Java developers
• Better performance for incremental builds and multi-project setups

Cons of Gradle

• Slower initial build times compared to Bazel
• Less efficient caching mechanism for large-scale projects
• Limited support for polyglot builds across multiple languages

Code Comparison

Gradle build script (build.gradle):

plugins {
    id 'java'
}

dependencies {
    implementation 'org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-web'
}

Bazel build file (BUILD):

java_library(
    name = "my_lib",
    srcs = glob(["src/main/java/**/*.java"]),
    deps = [
        "@maven//:org_springframework_boot_spring_boot_starter_web",
    ],
)

Both Gradle and Bazel are powerful build tools, but they have different strengths. Gradle excels in flexibility and ease of use, particularly for Java projects, while Bazel offers superior performance and scalability for large, multi-language projects. The choice between them depends on the specific needs of your project and development team.

Pros of Maven

• Simpler setup and configuration, with a more intuitive project structure
• Wider adoption and larger ecosystem of plugins and dependencies
• Better integration with Java-centric development environments and IDEs

Cons of Maven

• Less flexible and harder to customize for complex build scenarios
• Slower build times for large projects, especially with many dependencies
• Limited support for multi-language projects and polyglot development

Code Comparison

Maven pom.xml:

<project>
  <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
  <groupId>com.example</groupId>
  <artifactId>my-app</artifactId>
  <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
</project>

Bazel BUILD:

java_library(
    name = "my-app",
    srcs = glob(["src/main/java/**/*.java"]),
    deps = [
        "@maven//:com_google_guava_guava",
    ],
)

Maven focuses on convention over configuration, with a declarative XML-based approach. Bazel uses a more programmatic style, offering greater flexibility but requiring more explicit configuration. Maven's ecosystem is more Java-centric, while Bazel supports multiple languages and platforms more easily.

Pros of sbt

• Simpler setup and configuration for Scala projects
• Better integration with Scala ecosystem and libraries
• More intuitive for Scala developers due to Scala-based DSL

Cons of sbt

• Limited support for languages other than Scala and Java
• Slower build times for large projects compared to Bazel
• Less robust caching and incremental build capabilities

Code Comparison

sbt build definition:

name := "MyProject"
version := "1.0"
scalaVersion := "2.13.8"

libraryDependencies += "org.scalatest" %% "scalatest" % "3.2.15" % Test

Bazel BUILD file:

scala_library(
    name = "my_project",
    srcs = glob(["src/main/scala/**/*.scala"]),
    deps = [
        "@maven//:org_scalatest_scalatest_2_13",
    ],
)

sbt is more concise for Scala projects, while Bazel offers a more verbose but flexible configuration for multi-language projects. sbt's DSL is more familiar to Scala developers, whereas Bazel uses a Python-like syntax. Bazel's approach allows for better scalability and reproducibility across different languages and platforms, but may require more initial setup compared to sbt for simple Scala projects.

Pros of Buck

• Faster build times for large projects due to its incremental build system
• Better support for mobile development, especially for Android projects
• More flexible and customizable build rules

Cons of Buck

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Bazel
• Less extensive documentation and learning resources
• Limited support for certain languages and platforms

Code Comparison

Buck build file:

android_binary(
    name = 'app',
    manifest = 'AndroidManifest.xml',
    keystore = ':debug_keystore',
    deps = [
        ':app-lib',
    ],
)

Bazel BUILD file:

android_binary(
    name = "app",
    manifest = "AndroidManifest.xml",
    custom_package = "com.example.myapp",
    deps = [":app_lib"],
)

Both build systems use similar syntax for defining build targets, but Buck tends to have more concise and flexible rule definitions. Bazel's syntax is often more verbose but provides more explicit control over build configurations.