hunter

Pros of Conan

• More flexible package management with support for multiple build systems and languages
• Larger community and ecosystem with more available packages
• Better integration with IDEs and CI/CD pipelines

Cons of Conan

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration options
• Requires more manual intervention for package creation and maintenance
• Can be slower for large projects due to its Python-based implementation

Code Comparison

Hunter:

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

Conan:

from conans import ConanFile, CMake

class MyProject(ConanFile):
    requires = "boost/1.74.0"
    generators = "cmake"

    def build(self):
        cmake = CMake(self)
        cmake.configure()
        cmake.build()

Both Hunter and Conan aim to simplify C++ dependency management, but they take different approaches. Hunter focuses on CMake integration and simplicity, while Conan offers more flexibility and a wider range of features. The choice between them depends on project requirements and team preferences.

Pros of vcpkg

• Simpler setup and usage, especially for Windows developers
• Larger package ecosystem with more frequent updates
• Better integration with Visual Studio and CMake

Cons of vcpkg

• Less flexible build configurations
• Limited support for custom build options
• Slower package installation process

Code Comparison

vcpkg:

find_package(CURL CONFIG REQUIRED)
target_link_libraries(main PRIVATE CURL::libcurl)

Hunter:

hunter_add_package(CURL)
find_package(CURL CONFIG REQUIRED)
target_link_libraries(main PRIVATE CURL::libcurl)

Key Differences

• vcpkg focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while Hunter offers more advanced features and customization options
• vcpkg has better Windows support, whereas Hunter provides more consistent cross-platform experience
• vcpkg uses a centralized package repository, while Hunter allows for decentralized package definitions

Use Cases

• vcpkg: Ideal for Windows developers and projects with straightforward dependencies
• Hunter: Better suited for complex projects requiring fine-grained control over package versions and build configurations

Community and Support

• vcpkg: Backed by Microsoft, with active development and community support
• Hunter: Smaller but dedicated community, with regular updates and contributions

Pros of Meson

• Faster build times due to its efficient build system design
• Simpler syntax and easier learning curve for new users
• Better cross-platform support, especially for Windows

Cons of Meson

• Less extensive package management capabilities
• Smaller ecosystem and fewer available packages
• Limited support for some legacy build systems

Code Comparison

Meson build file example:

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

Hunter CMakeLists.txt example:

include("cmake/HunterGate.cmake")
HunterGate(URL "..." SHA1 "...")
project(example)
hunter_add_package(Boost)
find_package(Boost CONFIG REQUIRED)
add_executable(myapp main.cpp)
target_link_libraries(myapp PUBLIC Boost::boost)

Meson focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while Hunter provides more robust package management within the CMake ecosystem. Meson excels in build speed and cross-platform support, but Hunter offers a wider range of packages and integrates seamlessly with existing CMake projects. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, existing infrastructure, and developer preferences.

Pros of nixpkgs

• Broader ecosystem support, covering a wide range of languages and tools
• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Integrated with NixOS, providing a complete system management solution

Cons of nixpkgs

• Steeper learning curve due to the Nix language and ecosystem complexity
• Can be slower to build and update packages compared to Hunter

Code Comparison

nixpkgs:

{ pkgs ? import <nixpkgs> {} }:

pkgs.stdenv.mkDerivation {
  name = "my-package";
  buildInputs = [ pkgs.boost pkgs.openssl ];
}

Hunter:

hunter_add_package(Boost)
hunter_add_package(OpenSSL)
find_package(Boost CONFIG REQUIRED)
find_package(OpenSSL CONFIG REQUIRED)

Key Differences

• nixpkgs uses the Nix language for package definitions, while Hunter uses CMake
• nixpkgs provides a complete package management system, whereas Hunter focuses on C++ dependency management
• Hunter integrates more seamlessly with existing CMake projects, while nixpkgs requires adapting to the Nix ecosystem

Use Cases

• nixpkgs: Ideal for managing entire systems or projects with diverse language requirements
• Hunter: Better suited for C++ projects seeking straightforward dependency management within the CMake ecosystem

Pros of Homebrew

• Widely adopted and supported package manager for macOS
• Large community-maintained package repository
• Simple and intuitive command-line interface

Cons of Homebrew

• Limited to macOS and Linux systems
• Less granular control over package versions
• Not specifically designed for C++ dependency management

Code Comparison

Hunter:

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

Homebrew:

brew install boost
# In CMakeLists.txt
find_package(Boost REQUIRED COMPONENTS system filesystem)
target_link_libraries(foo Boost::system Boost::filesystem)

Key Differences

• Hunter is a cross-platform package manager focused on C++ projects, while Homebrew is a general-purpose package manager for macOS and Linux
• Hunter integrates directly with CMake, allowing for more seamless dependency management in C++ projects
• Homebrew relies on system-wide installations, while Hunter can manage dependencies at the project level
• Hunter provides better version control and reproducibility for C++ dependencies