I'm somewhat new to using C++ often enough to care about this. At times, it genuinely feels harder to link a project, than write the code. Having come from a w

I'm somewhat new to using C++ often enough to care about this. At times, it genuinely feels harder to link a project, than write the code. Having come from a webdev background, where well publicised package managers have effectively directed how a project should be built, C++'s ecosystem looks to have created the opposite situation, where the utility of a project or library appears to dictate which build manager is used, in most cases. Either you go with the grain and adopt your chosen library/environment's build system, or you increase the work you have to do. I liked GYP a lot, and when starting out, was trying to stick with it, naively thinking that would be all I need to do. But soon enough realised that sticking with any one single package manager is impractical, unless you're prepared to effectively narrow your choice of libraries to a subset of what's available. It seems like such an obvious problem, that I find it strange that the domain is still so fragmented. At the very least, you'd wonder why potential rivals wouldn't aim to make their products CMake compatible to start, and then work from there.