4 ms·
FWIW performance is not really in the picture when I say "I wish everything was Bazel". Configured properly, CMake and Make are probably unbeatable for speed.
by bjackman 4y ago
FWIW performance is not really in the picture when I say "I wish everything was Bazel". Configured properly, CMake and Make are probably unbeatable for speed.
It's just that I really really hate maintaining Makefiles and CMake configs.
Admittedly in the latter case it's because I have never grokked CMake, but also... I don't want to grok CMake, I grok a perfectly good way of building C++ already. And it can also build Go and Rust and Typescript and Proto and JSonnet and it can run my janky codegen shell scripts and if we migrate to Carbon it will build that too and I won't even have to read the documentation.
Not saying I think everyone should migrate to Bazel (I hope I will not become That Ex-Googler), just explaining where the urge comes from.
- simplotek 4y ago> It's just that I really really hate maintaining Makefiles and CMake configs. CMake is a high level makefile/build system generator. There is nothing to maintain in modern cmake. You just set what executables/libraries you want to build, set their dependencies, and you're done. And of all alternatives you chose to push, you pick Bazel of all things? Feature-incomplete and requiring all sorts of low-level maintenance?
- HervalFreire 4y agoI don't like bazel, but cmake is a piece of shit too. The logic is convoluted, documentation is over complicated and the language contains too many primitive functions and ways to shoot yourself in the foot. There's really nothing good that's available.