Pros of Conan

• Language-agnostic package manager, supporting multiple programming languages
• Decentralized architecture allowing for private repositories and custom servers
• More flexible dependency resolution with version ranges and conflict resolution

Cons of Conan

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration options
• Smaller package ecosystem compared to vcpkg
• Requires more setup and configuration for simple projects

Code Comparison

Conan:

from conans import ConanFile, CMake

class MyProjectConan(ConanFile):
    requires = "boost/1.74.0", "poco/1.9.4"
    generators = "cmake"

vcpkg:

{
  "name": "my-project",
  "version-string": "1.0.0",
  "dependencies": [
    "boost",
    "poco"
  ]
}

Both Conan and vcpkg are popular C++ package managers, but they differ in their approach and features. Conan offers more flexibility and language support, while vcpkg provides a simpler experience with a larger package ecosystem. The code comparison shows how dependencies are defined in each system, with Conan using a Python-based configuration and vcpkg using a JSON manifest file.

Pros of Hunter

• Cross-platform support for multiple operating systems and compilers
• Caching mechanism for faster builds and CI integration
• Supports multiple versions of the same package simultaneously

Cons of Hunter

• Steeper learning curve due to its unique approach
• Smaller package ecosystem compared to vcpkg
• Less frequent updates and maintenance

Code Comparison

Hunter:

hunter_add_package(Boost COMPONENTS system filesystem)
find_package(Boost CONFIG REQUIRED system filesystem)
target_link_libraries(main Boost::system Boost::filesystem)

vcpkg:

find_package(Boost REQUIRED COMPONENTS system filesystem)
target_link_libraries(main PRIVATE Boost::system Boost::filesystem)

Both Hunter and vcpkg aim to simplify C++ dependency management, but they take different approaches. Hunter focuses on a CMake-centric workflow with built-in caching, while vcpkg offers a more traditional package management experience with a larger ecosystem. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team familiarity, and desired workflow integration.

Pros of Meson

• Cross-platform build system with support for multiple languages
• Fast build times and efficient dependency management
• Simple and readable syntax for build configuration

Cons of Meson

• Steeper learning curve for developers familiar with traditional build systems
• Limited ecosystem compared to vcpkg's extensive package collection

Code Comparison

Meson build file (meson.build):

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

vcpkg manifest file (vcpkg.json):

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

Meson focuses on build configuration, while vcpkg primarily handles package management. Meson's build files are typically more concise and use a Python-like syntax. vcpkg uses JSON for package manifests and integrates with various build systems.

Meson is a full-fledged build system, offering more control over the build process. vcpkg excels at managing dependencies and integrating them into existing projects. While both tools serve different primary purposes, they can be used together in a project to leverage their respective strengths.