- (1) Provide a way to compile without internet access and specify the associated dependencies path manually. This is absolutely critical.

Most 'serious' multi-language package managers and integration systems are building in a sandbox without internet access for security reasons and reproducibility reasons.

If your build system does not allow to build offline and with manually specified dependencies, you will make life of integrators and package managers miserable and they will avoid your project.

(2) Never ever build in '-03 -march=native' by default. This is always a red flag and a sign of immaturity. People expect code to be portable and shippable.

Good default options should be CMake equivalent of "RelWithDebInfo" (meaning: -O2 -g -DNDEBUG ).

-O3 can be argued. -march=native is always always a mistake.

- (3) Allow your build tool to be built by an other build tool (e.g CMake).

Anybody caring about reproducibility will want to start from sources, not from a pre-compiled binary. This also matter for cross compilation.

- (4) Please offer a compatibility with pkg-config (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkg-config) and if possible CPS (https://cps-org.github.io/cps/overview.html) for both consumption and generation.

They are what will allow interoperability between your system and other build systems.

- (5) last but not least: Consider seriously the cross-compilation use case.

It is common in the world of embedded systems to cross compile. Any build system that does not support cross-compilation will be de facto banned from the embedded domain.

Gentoo user: hold my beer.

15000 what?

The 15000 was a typo on my side. Fixed.

It's similar, but designed for an existing ecosystem. Cargo is designed for `cargo`, obviously.

But `pyproject.toml` is designed for the existing tools to all eventually adopt. (As well as new tools, of course.)

https://github.com/xmake-io/xmake

The reason why I like it (beyond ease-of-use) is that it can spit out CMakeLists.txt and compile_commands.json for IDE/LSP integration and also supports installing Conan/vcpkg libraries or even Git repos.

    set_project("myapp")
    set_languages("c++20")

    add_requires("conan::fmt/11.0.2", {alias = "fmt"})
    add_requires("vcpkg::fmt", {alias = "fmt"})
    add_requires("git://github.com/fmtlib/fmt v11.0.2", {alias = "fmt"})

    target("myapp")
        set_kind("binary")
        add_files("src/*.cpp")
        add_packages("fmt")

  # Generate compile_commands.json and CMakeLists.txt
  $ xmake project -k compile_commands
  $ xmake project -k cmake

  # Build + run
  $ xmake && xmake run myapp

As an example of what I mean, say I want to link to the FMOD library (or any library I legally can't redistribute as an SDK). Or I want to enable automatic detection on Windows where I know the library/SDK is an installer package. My solution, in CMake, is to just ask the registry. In XMake I still can't figure out how to pull this off. I know that's pretty niche, but still.

The documentation gap is the biggest hurtle. A lot of the functions/ways of doing things are poorly documented, if they are at all. Including a CMake library that isn't in any of the package managers for example. It also has some weird quirks: automatic/magic scoping (which is NOT a bonus) along with a hack "import" function instead of using native require.

All of this said, it does work well when it does work. Especially with modules.

https://cmkr.build/

Not sure how big your plans are.

My thoughts would be to start as a cmake generator but to eventually replace it. Maybe optionally.

And to integrate suppoet for existing package managers like vcpkg.

At the same time, I'd want to remain modular enough that's it's not all or nothing. I also don't like locking.

But right now package management and build system are decoupled completely. And they are not like that in other ecosystems.

For example, Cmake can use vcpkg to install a package but then I still have to write more cmake to actually find and use it.

I have this solved at our company. We have a tool built on top of vcpkg, to manage internal + external dependencies. Our cmake linker logic leverages the port names and so all you really do is declare your manifest file (vcpkg.json) then declare which one of them you will export publicly.

Everything after that is automatic including the exported cmake config for your library.

    curl --proto '=https' --tlsv1.2 -sSf https://sh.rustup.rs | sh

I wish there was a dead simple installer TUI that had a common API specification so that you could host your installer spec on your.domain.com/install.json - point this TUI at it and it would understand the fine grained permissions required, handle required binary signature validation, manifest/sbom validation, give the user freedom to customize where/how things were installed, etc.

Social / emotional signals still exist around that word.

And yet it will insist on only giving you binaries that match exactly. Thankfully there are experimental extensions that allow it to automatically fall back.

How does craft handle these 'diamond' patterns where 2 dependencies may depend on versions of the same library as transitive dependencies (either for static or dynamic linking or as header-only includes) without custom build scripts like the Conan approach?

Here's my feeble attempt using Deno as base (it's extremely opinionated though and mostly for personal use in my hobby projects):

https://github.com/floooh/fibs

One interesting chicken-egg-problem I couldn't solve is how to figure out the C/C++ toolchain that's going to be used without running cmake on a 'dummy project file' first. For some toolchain/IDE combos (most notably Xcode and VStudio) cmake's toolchain detection takes a lot of time unfortunately.

What I've been doing to manage dependencies in a way that doesn't depress me much has been Nix flakes, which allows me a pretty straightforward `nix build` with the correct dependencies built in.

I'm just a bit curious though; a lot of C libraries are system-wide, and usually require the system package manager (e.g. libsdl2-dev) does this have an elegant way to handle those?

If you're happy to bake one config in a makefile, then cmake will do very little for you.

You need to define a CMake toolchain[1] and pass it to CMake with --toolchain /path/to/file in the command-line, or in a preset file with the key `toolchainFile` in a CMake preset. I've compiled for QNX and ARM32 boards with CMake, no issues, but this needs to be done.

[1]: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/manual/cmake-toolchains....

Cmake has a lot of warts, but they have also put a lot of effort into finding and fixing all those weird special cases. If your project uses CMake odds are high it will build anywhere.

  - Problem exists
  - Proposals of solutions, (varying quality), or not
  - "You can't just solve this. It's complicated! This problem must exist". (The post I'm replying to
  - Problem gets solved, hopefully.

The world is rich in complexity, subtlety, and exceptions to categorization. I don't think this should block us from solving problems.

If it's really bad, at least the easy 20%.

But how this tool figures out where the header files and build instructions for the libraries are that are included? Any expected layout or industry wide consensus?

https://github.com/randerson112/craft/blob/main/CMakeLists.t...

...and for custom requirements a manually created CMakeLists.extras.txt as escape hatch.

Unclear to me how more interesting scenarios like compiler- and platform-specific build options (enable/disable warnings, defines, etc...), cross-compilation via cmake toolchain files (e.g. via Emscripten SDK, WASI SDK or Android SDK/NDK) would be handled. E.g. just trivial things like "when compiling for Emscripten, include these source files, but not those others".

CMake is a combination of a warthog of a specification language, and mechanisms for handling a zillion idiosyncracies and corners cases of everything.

I doubt than < 10,000 lines of C code can cover much of that.

I am also doubtful that developers are able to express the exact relations and semantic nuances they want to, as opposed to some default that may make sense for many projects, but not all.

Still - if it helps people get started on simpler or more straightforward projects - that's neat :-)

Just alone reverse engineering the Xcode and Visual Studio project file formats for each IDE version isn't fun, but this "boring" grunt work is what makes cmake so valuable.

The core ideas of cmake are sound, it's only the scripting language that sucks.

Build systems don't plan to converge in the future =)

One nice feature of MSVC is that you can describe the linker dependencies in the source files (via #pragma comment(lib, ...)), this enables building fairly complex single-file tools trivially without a build system like this:

   cl mytool.c

C++ build system, at the core, boils down to calling gcc foo.c -o foo.obj / link foo.obj foo.exe (please forgive if I got they syntax wrong).

Sure, you have more .c files, and you pass some flags but that's the core.

I've recently started a new C++ program from scratch.

What build system did I write?

I didn't. I told Claude:

"Write a bun typescript script build.ts that compiles the .cpp files with cl and creates foo.exe. Create release and debug builds, trigger release build with -release cmd-line flag".

And it did it in minutes and it worked. And I can expand it with similar instructions. I can ask for release build with all the sanitize flags and claude will add it.

The particulars don't matter. I could have asked for a makefile, or cmake file or ninja or a script written in python or in ruby or in Go or in rust. I just like using bun for scripting.

The point is that in the past I tried to learn cmake and good lord, it's days spent learning something that I'll spent 1 hr using.

It just doesn't make sense to learn any of those tools given that claude can give me working any build system in minutes.

It makes even less sense to create new build tools. Even if you create the most amazing tool, I would still choose spending a minute asking claude than spending days learning arbitrary syntax of a new tool.