> I don't think you will find a single "fan" of cmake who would say it's the best thing since sliced bread. This happens in all the time. At one point here on

> I don't think you will find a single "fan" of cmake who would say it's the best thing since sliced bread. This happens in all the time. At one point here on HN I lamented that C++ didn't have a build system like Rust's Cargo, and lots of C++ folks came out of the woodwork to argue that Cargo is a shitty tool because it can't support certain byzantine projects. Similar arguments were made in a thread about a new C++ package manager that attempts to modernize C++ package management. Almost all of the pro-CMake arguments focus on how capable it is to handle bizarre projects, without realizing that most such projects are bizarre only because they each had to implement their own build system instead of using one that encouraged them toward some standard structure. I can't recall anyone making an argument that resembled "it's better to have one bad standard than a dozen competing standards", even in response to something like "CMake is the best of all C++ tools, but still a far cry from other languages' tooling." Some people would allude to C++ projects being uniquely difficult to build, and so it would be impossible to emulate another language's tools; however, this too seemed to be confusing "C++ projects lack a standard structure" with "C++ projects can't have a standard structure". I could go on and on.