4 ms·
With the full caveat the CMake has to solve a design space that has a lot of legacy it still just makes a lot of unintuitive choices. I have to go look up the c
by vvanders 4y ago
With the full caveat the CMake has to solve a design space that has a lot of legacy it still just makes a lot of unintuitive choices. I have to go look up the command line for generating vs building every single time I use it, and I've been using it for many years at this point.
Rust benefits a bunch from second mover advantage here but cargo is just soooo good in comparison. Sane defaults, descriptive commands and stuff like cross compilation that can be hell-on-earth with CMake/etc I find actually easier in cargo + cc crate + build.rs for small/medium libraries.
- jvanderbot 4y agoI have to go look up all kinds of things whether I'm using Rust, Cpp, or python. The package manifest for rust projects isn't as straightforward as some imply, but yeah, better than cmake! However the comparison isn't totally fair. When building a cmake project, it's muscle memory to go `cmake ..` out of source, then do it again and tab complete to choose the build options. That's 99% of the work I have to do when pulling dependencies. If you want a turnkey package build, just use vcpkg for Cpp. And guess what, it'll sit right on top of cmake. What TFA is talking about is a 5% or less workflow: making a new package from scratch when you don't have internet connectivity or don't have a bespoke cmakelists.txt to reference. Makes for a nice blog post, but that's not a common dev workflow.