meson

Pros of Ninja

• Extremely fast build execution, optimized for speed
• Lightweight and minimal, focusing solely on build execution
• Widely supported by various build generation tools

Cons of Ninja

• Low-level build system, requires a separate build generation tool
• Less user-friendly for direct project configuration
• Limited built-in functionality compared to more comprehensive build systems

Code Comparison

Ninja build file (build.ninja):

rule cc
  command = gcc -c $in -o $out

build foo.o: cc foo.c

Meson build file (meson.build):

project('example', 'c')
executable('foo', 'foo.c')

Summary

Ninja is a fast, lightweight build system focused on efficient build execution, while Meson is a higher-level build system generator that provides a more user-friendly configuration experience. Ninja excels in speed and simplicity but requires additional tools for project configuration. Meson offers a more comprehensive solution, generating Ninja build files while providing a more accessible and feature-rich build configuration process.

Both projects have their strengths and are often used together, with Meson generating Ninja build files for optimal performance. The choice between them depends on project requirements, team expertise, and desired level of control over the build process.

Pros of Bazel

• Highly scalable, designed for large monorepo projects
• Strong support for remote caching and distributed builds
• Extensive ecosystem with many pre-built rules for various languages and frameworks

Cons of Bazel

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Slower adoption in smaller projects due to its complexity
• Less intuitive syntax compared to Meson's Python-like language

Code Comparison

Meson build file:

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

Bazel BUILD file:

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

Key Differences

• Meson uses a Python-like syntax, while Bazel uses its own domain-specific language
• Bazel requires more boilerplate for simple projects but offers more fine-grained control
• Meson is generally easier to set up and use for smaller projects
• Bazel excels in large, complex projects with multiple languages and dependencies

Use Cases

• Meson: Ideal for small to medium-sized projects, especially in C/C++
• Bazel: Best suited for large, multi-language projects or organizations with complex build requirements

Pros of Premake

• Lua-based scripting language, which is familiar to many developers and easy to learn
• Supports a wide range of IDEs and build systems, including Visual Studio, Xcode, and GNU Make
• Highly customizable and extensible through Lua modules

Cons of Premake

• Less active development and smaller community compared to Meson
• Limited built-in support for modern build features like dependency management
• May require more manual configuration for complex projects

Code Comparison

Meson:

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

Premake:

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

project "myapp"
   kind "ConsoleApp"
   language "C"
   files { "**.c" }

Meson uses a Python-like syntax and is more concise, while Premake uses Lua and requires more explicit configuration. Meson's approach is generally simpler for basic projects, but Premake offers more fine-grained control over project settings.

Both build systems aim to simplify cross-platform project configuration, but they differ in their approach and target audience. Meson focuses on modern, fast builds with built-in features, while Premake emphasizes flexibility and IDE integration.

Pros of SCons

• Written in Python, allowing for easy customization and extension
• Highly flexible and powerful, suitable for complex build scenarios
• Mature project with a long history and established user base

Cons of SCons

• Slower build times, especially for large projects
• Steeper learning curve due to its flexibility and Python-based configuration
• Less modern syntax compared to newer build systems

Code Comparison

Meson build file:

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

SCons build file:

env = Environment()
env.Program('myapp', 'main.c')

Key Differences

• Meson uses a custom domain-specific language, while SCons uses Python
• Meson focuses on simplicity and speed, while SCons prioritizes flexibility
• Meson has better out-of-the-box support for modern build features and cross-compilation

Conclusion

While SCons offers more flexibility and customization options, Meson provides a more streamlined and faster build experience, especially for larger projects. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team expertise, and desired build system complexity.