Pros of Bazel

• More extensive language support, including C++, Java, Python, and many others
• Better scalability for large, multi-language projects
• More active community and frequent updates

Cons of Bazel

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Slower adoption in some industries compared to Buck
• Can be overkill for smaller projects

Code Comparison

Buck:

java_library(
    name = "lib",
    srcs = glob(["*.java"]),
    deps = [
        "//libs:guava",
    ],
)

Bazel:

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

Both Buck and Bazel use similar syntax for defining build targets, but Bazel's dependency management is more flexible and powerful, especially for external dependencies. Bazel's workspace concept allows for better isolation and reproducibility across different environments.

While Buck is known for its simplicity and fast build times, Bazel offers more advanced features and better support for complex, multi-language projects. The choice between the two often depends on project size, complexity, and specific requirements of the development team.

Pros of Pants

• More flexible and extensible plugin system
• Better support for Python projects and mixed-language codebases
• Active community development and frequent updates

Cons of Pants

• Steeper learning curve for new users
• Less mature and battle-tested compared to Buck
• Smaller ecosystem of plugins and integrations

Code Comparison

Buck:

[python_binary(
    name = "hello_world",
    main_module = "hello_world",
    deps = [
        ":greet",
    ],
)]

Pants:

python_sources(
    name="hello_world",
    sources=["hello_world.py"],
    dependencies=[
        ":greet",
    ],
)

Both Buck and Pants are build systems designed to handle large, multi-language projects. Buck, developed by Facebook, is known for its speed and efficiency, particularly with Java and Android projects. Pants, on the other hand, excels in Python-centric environments and offers more flexibility for diverse codebases.

While Buck has a larger user base and more extensive documentation, Pants is gaining popularity due to its active development and community-driven approach. Buck may be preferred for projects heavily focused on Java or Android, while Pants is often chosen for Python-heavy or polyglot projects.

The code examples demonstrate the syntax differences between the two systems, with Pants offering a more intuitive and Pythonic approach to defining build targets.

Pros of Gradle

• More widely adopted and supported in the Java ecosystem
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for various languages and build tasks
• Flexible and powerful DSL for build script configuration

Cons of Gradle

• Steeper learning curve, especially for complex builds
• Can be slower for large projects compared to Buck's caching system
• More memory-intensive, particularly for large multi-module projects

Code Comparison

Gradle build script:

plugins {
    id 'java'
}

dependencies {
    implementation 'com.example:library:1.0.0'
}

task customTask {
    doLast {
        println 'Hello from Gradle!'
    }
}

Buck build file:

java_library(
    name = 'example',
    srcs = glob(['src/main/java/**/*.java']),
    deps = [
        '//libs:library',
    ],
)

genrule(
    name = 'custom_task',
    out = 'output.txt',
    cmd = 'echo "Hello from Buck!" > $OUT',
)

Both build systems offer declarative ways to define projects and tasks, but Gradle's DSL is more expressive and flexible, while Buck focuses on simplicity and performance. Gradle's syntax is more familiar to Java developers, whereas Buck uses a Python-like syntax for its build files.

Pros of Maven

• Widely adopted and supported in the Java ecosystem
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for various build tasks
• Simpler configuration for standard Java projects

Cons of Maven

• Slower build times for large projects
• Less flexible for non-Java languages and custom build processes
• XML-based configuration can be verbose and harder to maintain

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>

Buck BUCK file:

java_library(
  name = 'my-app',
  srcs = glob(['src/main/java/**/*.java']),
  deps = [
    '//lib:guava',
  ],
)

Maven uses XML for configuration, while Buck uses a Python-like syntax. Buck's configuration is generally more concise and allows for more programmatic control over the build process. However, Maven's XML structure is more familiar to many Java developers and can be easier to understand for simple projects.

Pros of sbt

• More mature and widely adopted in the Scala ecosystem
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for various build and deployment tasks
• Supports incremental compilation, improving build times for large projects

Cons of sbt

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to Scala
• Can be slower for initial project setup and configuration
• More complex syntax for build definition files

Code Comparison

sbt build definition:

name := "MyProject"
version := "1.0"
scalaVersion := "2.13.6"

libraryDependencies += "org.scalatest" %% "scalatest" % "3.2.9" % Test

Buck build definition:

scala_library(
    name = "my-project",
    srcs = glob(["src/main/scala/**/*.scala"]),
    deps = [
        "//lib:scalatest",
    ],
)

sbt focuses on Scala-specific builds with a more expressive DSL, while Buck provides a simpler, more generic build system that can be used across multiple languages. sbt offers more built-in features for Scala projects, but Buck aims for faster build times and better scalability for large, multi-language projects.

Pros of Bazelisk

• Simplifies Bazel version management and installation
• Supports multiple operating systems and architectures
• Automatically downloads and uses the correct Bazel version for each project

Cons of Bazelisk

• Limited to Bazel ecosystem, while Buck is more versatile
• Lacks some advanced features present in Buck, such as distributed caching
• May require additional configuration for complex build scenarios

Code Comparison

Bazelisk usage:

bazelisk build //my:target

Buck usage:

buck build //my:target

Both tools use similar command-line syntax for building targets, but Bazelisk acts as a wrapper around Bazel, ensuring the correct version is used.

Key Differences

• Buck is a full-featured build system, while Bazelisk is a version manager for Bazel
• Buck has a broader scope, supporting multiple languages and platforms, whereas Bazelisk is focused on the Bazel ecosystem
• Bazelisk simplifies Bazel version management, which is not a primary concern for Buck users

Use Cases

• Choose Buck for large, multi-language projects with complex build requirements
• Opt for Bazelisk when working with Bazel-based projects and need seamless version management