Comparison with CMake

[Domen Vrankar]

Hi,

In the FAQ I noticed that Bazel is not compared to either Autotools,
Boost build or CMake and even for those there are only one bulled
without longer, backed by examples explanation for each.

I'm mostly interested in advantages and drawbacks compared to CMake.
I'm looking at this build system from C++ perspective.

Can someone please point me to any more in depth comparison pages?

Thanks,
Domen

[Damien Martin-guillerez]

Auto tools and CMake are not build system by themselves but autoconfiguration system that generate makefiles. Bazel is more to compare with make than CMake. I am working on trying to provide a autoconfiguration system to Bazel then I think the comparison could make sense.

For now the drawbacks is that Bazel has no autoconfiguration but the advantage IMO is that the build language is simple, high level and can ensure correct incrementality.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bazel-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bazel-discus...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bazel-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bazel-discuss/CAKgx6BL60w2rayPAw6LciNAHASOhW-nOxVA9j33RoYMi7AwL%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Domen Vrankar]

2015-04-21 10:20 GMT+02:00 Damien Martin-guillerez <dmar...@google.com>:
> Auto tools and CMake are not build system by themselves but
> autoconfiguration system that generate makefiles. Bazel is more to compare
> with make than CMake. I am working on trying to provide a autoconfiguration
> system to Bazel then I think the comparison could make sense.

Thanks, I was mislead by some comments that I've read. I also somehow
thought that a build system that hides away build details is more of a
meta build system that relies heavily on auto configuration.

Regards,
Domen