Pros of xmake

• More modern and actively maintained, with frequent updates
• Supports a wider range of programming languages and platforms
• Simpler and more intuitive configuration syntax

Cons of xmake

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Premake
• Less documentation and fewer third-party resources available
• Steeper learning curve for users familiar with Premake

Code Comparison

xmake configuration:

target("myapp")
    set_kind("binary")
    add_files("src/*.cpp")

Premake configuration:

project "myapp"
    kind "ConsoleApp"
    files { "src/*.cpp" }

Both xmake and Premake use Lua-based configuration files, but xmake's syntax is generally more concise and easier to read. xmake offers more built-in functions and features, while Premake relies more on user-defined scripts for advanced functionality.

xmake provides better support for modern C++ features and toolchains, making it more suitable for cutting-edge projects. However, Premake's longer history and larger user base mean it has more extensive documentation and community-contributed resources.

Ultimately, the choice between xmake and Premake depends on project requirements, team familiarity, and desired features. xmake is a strong contender for new projects, while Premake remains a reliable option with a proven track record.

Pros of Meson

• Faster build times due to its efficient dependency management and parallel build support
• Better cross-platform compatibility, especially for non-Windows systems
• More extensive built-in support for various programming languages and compilers

Cons of Meson

• Steeper learning curve compared to Premake's simpler Lua-based syntax
• Less flexibility in customizing build configurations for complex projects

Code Comparison

Premake (Lua-based):

project "MyProject"
   kind "ConsoleApp"
   language "C++"
   files { "**.h", "**.cpp" }

Meson (Python-like syntax):

project('MyProject', 'cpp')
executable('myapp', sources: ['main.cpp'])

Both Premake and Meson are popular build configuration tools, but they cater to different needs. Premake offers simplicity and flexibility, making it easier for developers familiar with Lua to create custom build scripts. Meson, on the other hand, provides better performance and broader language support, making it more suitable for larger, multi-language projects. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your team's expertise.

Pros of Ninja

• Extremely fast build execution, optimized for speed
• Minimal syntax and simple build file format
• Designed to work well with generated build files

Cons of Ninja

• Less flexible and feature-rich compared to Premake
• Requires a separate build file generator in most cases
• Limited built-in support for complex build configurations

Code Comparison

Ninja build file:

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

build foo.o: cc foo.c

Premake script:

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

Key Differences

• Ninja focuses on fast build execution, while Premake emphasizes build configuration generation
• Premake offers a more expressive scripting language (Lua) for complex build setups
• Ninja requires external tools or scripts to generate its build files, whereas Premake generates project files directly
• Premake supports multiple build systems and IDEs, while Ninja is a standalone build system

Use Cases

• Ninja: Large-scale projects requiring fast builds, often used with CMake or other generators
• Premake: Cross-platform projects needing flexible build configurations and IDE integration

Pros of vcpkg

• Extensive library of pre-built packages for C and C++ libraries
• Seamless integration with Visual Studio and CMake
• Cross-platform support for Windows, Linux, and macOS

Cons of vcpkg

• Primarily focused on package management, not project generation
• Steeper learning curve for users new to C++ ecosystem
• May require more manual configuration for complex projects

Code Comparison

vcpkg:

{
  "name": "example",
  "version-string": "1.0.0",
  "dependencies": [
    "boost",
    "sdl2"
  ]
}

Premake:

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

project "MyApp"
   kind "ConsoleApp"
   language "C++"
   files { "**.h", "**.cpp" }

Summary

vcpkg excels in package management and integration with popular C++ development tools, while Premake focuses on project generation and build configuration. vcpkg offers a vast library of pre-built packages, making it easier to manage dependencies. Premake provides more flexibility in defining project structures and build settings across multiple platforms. The choice between the two depends on project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of CMake

• Widely adopted and supported by many IDEs and build systems
• Extensive documentation and large community support
• Powerful and flexible, capable of handling complex build scenarios

Cons of CMake

• Steeper learning curve due to its own scripting language
• Can be verbose and require more boilerplate code
• Slower execution compared to Premake for large projects

Code Comparison

CMake:

cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.10)
project(MyProject)
add_executable(MyApp main.cpp)
target_link_libraries(MyApp MyLibrary)

Premake:

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

project "MyApp"
   kind "ConsoleApp"
   language "C++"
   files { "**.cpp", "**.h" }
   links { "MyLibrary" }

CMake uses its own scripting language, while Premake uses Lua for configuration. CMake's syntax is more verbose, but it offers more built-in functions for complex scenarios. Premake's Lua-based approach is often more concise and easier to read for simpler projects.

Both tools are capable of generating project files for various IDEs and build systems, but CMake has broader adoption and support in the industry. Premake, on the other hand, offers faster execution times and a more straightforward syntax for many common use cases.

Pros of Bazel

• More powerful and scalable for large, complex projects
• Better support for multi-language builds and cross-platform development
• Faster incremental builds due to advanced caching mechanisms

Cons of Bazel

• Steeper learning curve and more complex setup
• Requires more configuration and boilerplate code
• Less suitable for smaller projects due to overhead

Code Comparison

Bazel BUILD file:

cc_binary(
    name = "hello-world",
    srcs = ["hello-world.cc"],
)

Premake script:

project "HelloWorld"
   kind "ConsoleApp"
   language "C++"
   files { "**.h", "**.cpp" }

Summary

Bazel is a more powerful build system designed for large-scale projects, offering advanced features like hermetic builds and fine-grained caching. It excels in multi-language and cross-platform development but comes with a steeper learning curve.

Premake, on the other hand, is simpler and more straightforward, making it ideal for smaller projects or those requiring quick setup. It generates project files for various IDEs, which can be beneficial for developers who prefer working within their familiar environments.

The choice between Bazel and Premake depends on the project's scale, complexity, and specific requirements. Bazel is better suited for large, complex projects with diverse language requirements, while Premake is more appropriate for smaller projects or those needing quick IDE integration.