Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: I built a Cargo-like build tool for C/C++

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 181 posts

Re: Show HN: I built a Cargo-like build tool for C/C++

#11

Post by SpaceNoodled »

duped wrote: post #4

FWIW: there is something fundamentally wrong with a meta-meta build system. I don't think you should bother generating or wrapping CMake, you should be replacing it.

My thoughts exactly. I thought this was going to be some new thing, but it's just yet another reason that I'll stick with Makefiles.

Re: Show HN: I built a Cargo-like build tool for C/C++

#13

Post by ori_b »

lgtx wrote: post #10

The installation instructions being a `curl | sh` writing to the user's bashrc does not inspire confidence.

They did say it was inspired by cargo, which is often installed using rustup as such:

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

Re: Show HN: I built a Cargo-like build tool for C/C++

#14

Post by flohofwoe »

duped wrote: post #4

FWIW: there is something fundamentally wrong with a meta-meta build system. I don't think you should bother generating or wrapping CMake, you should be replacing it.

Cmake is doing a lot of underappreciated work under the hood that would be very hard to replicate in another tool, tons of accumulated workarounds for all the different host operating systems, compiler toolchains and IDEs, it's also one of few build tools which properly support Windows and Visual Studio.

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.

Re: Show HN: I built a Cargo-like build tool for C/C++

#17

Post by flohofwoe »

SpaceNoodled wrote: post #11
duped wrote: post #4

FWIW: there is something fundamentally wrong with a meta-meta build system. I don't think you should bother generating or wrapping CMake, you should be replacing it.

My thoughts exactly. I thought this was going to be some new thing, but it's just yet another reason that I'll stick with Makefiles.

Do your Makefiles work across Linux, macOS and Windows (without WSL or MingW), GCC, Clang and MSVC, or allow loading the project into an IDE like Xcode or Visual Studio though? That's why meta-build-systems like cmake were created, not to be a better GNU Make.

Re: Show HN: I built a Cargo-like build tool for C/C++

#18

Post by cherryteastain »

Seems to solve a problem very similar to Conan or vcpkg but without its own package archive or build scripts. In general, unlike Cargo/Rust, many C/C++ projects dynamically link libraries and often require complex Makefile/shell script etc magic to discover and optionally build their dependencies.

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?

Re: Show HN: I built a Cargo-like build tool for C/C++

#20

Post by Surac »

Uses CMAKE, Sorry not for me. Call me old but i prefere good old make or batch. Maybe it's because i can understand those tools. Debugging CMAKE build problems made me hate it. Also i code for embedded CPU and most of the time CMAKE is just overkill and does not play well the compiler/binutils provided. The Platform independency is just not happening in those environments.
Post reply on HN