Pros of Meson

• Higher-level build system with a more user-friendly syntax
• Cross-platform support with built-in dependency management
• Faster configuration and generation of build files

Cons of Meson

• Steeper learning curve for users familiar with simpler build systems
• Less flexibility for complex, custom build scenarios
• Requires Python runtime, which may not be available in all environments

Code Comparison

Ninja build file:

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

build foo.o: cc foo.c

Meson build file:

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

Meson provides a higher-level abstraction, while Ninja offers more fine-grained control over the build process. Meson generates Ninja build files, making it a layer on top of Ninja rather than a direct alternative.

Ninja is a low-level build system focused on speed and simplicity, while Meson is a more feature-rich build system that aims to simplify the build configuration process. Meson is better suited for larger projects with complex dependencies, while Ninja excels in scenarios where maximum build speed is crucial.

Pros of Bazel

• More comprehensive build system with advanced features like remote caching and execution
• Supports multi-language projects and has built-in rules for many languages
• Offers hermetic and reproducible builds across different environments

Cons of Bazel

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Slower initial setup and build times for small projects
• Requires more system resources and can be overkill for simple projects

Code Comparison

Ninja build file:

rule cc
  command = gcc $in -o $out

build hello: cc hello.c

Bazel BUILD file:

cc_binary(
    name = "hello",
    srcs = ["hello.c"],
)

Key Differences

• Ninja is a low-level build system focused on speed and simplicity
• Bazel is a high-level build and test system with more features and abstractions
• Ninja requires external tools to generate build files, while Bazel has its own configuration language
• Bazel provides better support for large, multi-language projects and distributed builds
• Ninja is generally faster for small to medium-sized projects with simpler build requirements

Pros of vcpkg

• Simplifies C++ library management and dependency handling
• Supports multiple platforms and build systems
• Integrates well with Visual Studio and CMake

Cons of vcpkg

• Larger scope and complexity compared to Ninja's focused build system
• May have longer build times for large projects with many dependencies
• Steeper learning curve for users new to package management

Code Comparison

Ninja build file example:

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

build foo.o: cc foo.c

vcpkg CMake integration example:

cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.0)
project(MyProject)
find_package(CURL REQUIRED)
target_link_libraries(MyProject PRIVATE CURL::libcurl)

Summary

Ninja is a fast, lightweight build system focused on efficient compilation, while vcpkg is a comprehensive package manager for C++ libraries. Ninja excels in build speed and simplicity, making it ideal for projects with straightforward build processes. vcpkg, on the other hand, offers broader functionality in managing dependencies across platforms, but may introduce additional complexity and longer build times for large projects with numerous libraries.

Pros of Maven

• Comprehensive project management tool with built-in dependency management
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for various build and deployment tasks
• Supports multi-module projects and transitive dependencies

Cons of Maven

• Slower build times, especially for large projects
• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Verbose XML-based project configuration

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>

Ninja (build.ninja):

rule cc
  command = gcc $in -o $out

build hello: cc hello.c

Maven is a comprehensive build and project management tool primarily used for Java projects, offering extensive features and plugins. Ninja, on the other hand, is a small, fast build system focused on speed and simplicity.

Maven's XML-based configuration can be verbose but provides a standardized structure for project management. Ninja uses a simple, concise build file format that's easy to read and write.

While Maven excels in dependency management and complex project structures, Ninja shines in build speed and simplicity, making it suitable for projects where build performance is critical.

Pros of Gradle

• More feature-rich and flexible build system, supporting multiple languages and platforms
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for easy integration with various tools and frameworks
• Powerful dependency management with support for transitive dependencies

Cons of Gradle

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and DSL
• Slower build times for small projects compared to Ninja
• Larger memory footprint and resource consumption

Code Comparison

Ninja build file (build.ninja):

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

build foo.o: cc foo.c

Gradle build file (build.gradle):

plugins {
    id 'c'
}

model {
    components {
        main(NativeExecutableSpec)
    }
}

Ninja focuses on simplicity and speed, using a straightforward build file syntax. Gradle offers a more expressive and flexible approach, allowing for complex build configurations and task definitions. While Ninja excels in fast, incremental builds for smaller projects, Gradle provides a comprehensive build system suitable for large, multi-module projects across various languages and platforms.