• entwine@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I was never convinced by Meson’s value proposition. From what I remember, it was always just meant to reinvent CMake with a different DSL. Like, literally just CMake but slightly different.

    I understand CMake’s DSL isn’t the prettiest, but as far as improving ergonomics of a build system, minimizing the amount of build scripts you write is far more effective than changing the syntax. If you find yourself writing too much CMake in a project, then switching to a build system with a different design (eg Bazel, Scons, Waf, …) is probably the better choice.

    And of course, since Meson is just a CMake clone, it’s always going to be compared to it, and its always going to have to compete on features. On that front, CMake has always been ahead, and I don’t see that changing. So in the end, Meson is just another example of that one XKCD meme about standards.

    • fruitcantfly@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Thank you for the answer!

      I have not previously heard Meson described as a reinvention of Cmake or a CMake clone, nor that it was meant to be. I would think that Meson being as opinionated as it is, including for example the fact that it does not and will not support user-defined functions, precludes it from being a CMake clone. It seems instead to be a build-system with a rather different philosophy and feature-set compared to Cmake. But if that philosophy or that feature-set does not match your needs, then there’s obviously no reason to pick it over CMake