Pros of Bazel (bazelbuild/bazel)

• More active community development and contributions
• Broader ecosystem support with plugins and integrations
• Regular updates and maintenance

Cons of Bazel (bazelbuild/bazel)

• Potentially less stable due to frequent changes
• May have more complex configuration options
• Slightly larger repository size

Code Comparison

Bazel (bazelbuild/bazel):

def cc_binary(name, srcs, deps=None, **kwargs):
    native.cc_binary(
        name = name,
        srcs = srcs,
        deps = deps,
        **kwargs
    )

Bazel (google/bazel):

def cc_binary(name, srcs, deps=None, **kwargs):
    native.cc_binary(
        name = name,
        srcs = srcs,
        deps = deps,
        **kwargs
    )

The code comparison shows that both repositories use similar syntax for defining build rules. However, the bazelbuild/bazel repository may have more extensive documentation and examples for advanced use cases.

Both Bazel repositories aim to provide a fast, scalable, multi-language, and cross-platform build system. The bazelbuild/bazel repository is the official, community-supported version, while google/bazel is the original Google-maintained version. Users should consider their specific needs and preferences when choosing between the two, keeping in mind the trade-offs between community support and stability.

Pros of Pants

• Simpler configuration and less boilerplate compared to Bazel
• Better support for Python projects and ecosystems
• Faster incremental builds for small to medium-sized projects

Cons of Pants

• Smaller ecosystem and community support than Bazel
• Less suitable for very large, multi-language projects
• Fewer built-in rules and integrations for various languages and tools

Code Comparison

Pants BUILD file:

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

Bazel BUILD file:

py_library(
    name = "my_lib",
    srcs = glob(["*.py"]),
    deps = [
        "@pip//requests",
    ],
)

Both Pants and Bazel use similar concepts for defining build targets, but Pants generally requires less configuration and has more intuitive defaults for Python projects. Bazel's syntax is more verbose but offers more fine-grained control over build specifications.

Pants is well-suited for Python-centric projects and organizations looking for a simpler build system, while Bazel excels in large, polyglot codebases with complex dependency graphs. The choice between the two depends on project size, language diversity, and team preferences for configuration complexity versus flexibility.

Pros of Gradle

• More flexible and extensible build system with a rich plugin ecosystem
• Easier learning curve and more intuitive DSL for build scripts
• Better support for multi-project builds and dependency management

Cons of Gradle

• Slower build times for large projects compared to Bazel
• Less emphasis on reproducible builds and hermetic execution
• More complex configuration for advanced use cases

Code Comparison

Gradle build script (build.gradle):

plugins {
    id 'java'
}

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

Bazel build file (BUILD):

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

Both Gradle and Bazel are powerful build tools, but they have different strengths. Gradle offers more flexibility and ease of use, while Bazel focuses on speed and reproducibility. The choice between them depends on project requirements and team preferences.

Pros of Maven

• Widely adopted in the Java ecosystem with extensive plugin ecosystem
• Simpler learning curve and configuration for basic projects
• Better integration with IDEs and existing Java tools

Cons of Maven

• Less flexible for complex, multi-language projects
• Slower build times for large projects
• XML-based configuration can become verbose and hard 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>

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, using a standardized project structure and lifecycle. Bazel offers more granular control over the build process, allowing for custom rules and better support for multi-language projects. While Maven is more familiar to Java developers, Bazel provides faster builds and better scalability for large, complex projects.

Pros of sbt

• Specifically designed for Scala projects, offering excellent integration and support for the Scala ecosystem
• Simpler configuration and less verbose build files compared to Bazel
• Interactive shell for running tasks and exploring project structure

Cons of sbt

• Limited support for multi-language projects compared to Bazel's versatility
• Slower build times for large projects, especially when compared to Bazel's caching and parallelization capabilities
• Less robust dependency management system than Bazel's

Code Comparison

sbt build file example:

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

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

Bazel BUILD file example:

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

Both build systems use declarative syntax, but sbt's configuration is more concise and Scala-specific, while Bazel's BUILD files are more verbose but offer greater flexibility for multi-language projects.

Pros of Meson

• Simpler syntax and easier to learn, especially for smaller projects
• Faster build times for many use cases
• Better cross-platform support out of the box

Cons of Meson

• Less powerful for very large, complex projects
• Smaller ecosystem and fewer third-party extensions
• Limited support for custom build rules compared to Bazel

Code Comparison

Meson:

project('example', 'cpp')
executable('myapp', 'main.cpp')

Bazel:

cc_binary(
    name = "myapp",
    srcs = ["main.cpp"],
)

Summary

Meson is generally simpler and faster for smaller to medium-sized projects, with better cross-platform support. Bazel offers more power and flexibility for large, complex projects but has a steeper learning curve. Meson's syntax is more concise and Python-like, while Bazel uses a custom DSL. Both tools are actively maintained and have their strengths, so the choice depends on project requirements and team preferences.