> The benefit of using widely supported tooling is even greater for large codebases. Your assertion really depends on your definition of "widely supported". Ju

> The benefit of using widely supported tooling is even greater for large codebases. Your assertion really depends on your definition of "widely supported". Jumping from fad to fad, however, is only effective as a way to waste time. >Staying in the cooking pot of ever larger proprietary and exotic hacks is how organizations grind to a halt. Using established build systems for C++, whether autotools or even plain makefiles, ensures that the project doesn't suffer from bit rot and developers can focus om developing code instead of wasting their time trying out every flavor of the month. And do note that the main reason C++ hasn't adopted any official build system is that each and every flavour of the month ends up being very horrible and very hard to maintain. Yes, including CMake. If a build system is known for telling essentially all users that they are doing it wrong, that means the build system is the problem.