Hacker News Reader

Comment by boardwaalk | Hacker News Reader

You can do things the way you do them in C++ in Rust if you want. You could `cargo vendor`, you could fork a repo & depend on a specific commit, etc. It’s up to you have the self-control to do that though and not just shovel random dependencies into your project, that’s all.

Mostly you seem to be complaining that it’s just to add dependencies? (maybe put a ‘sleep’ in your bash prompt or something?) and maybe that the Rust ecosystem doesn’t have as many duplicate libraries as C++? (of course it doesn’t?)

View on HN

The problem is that cargo gets in the way (as does rustc) if you try and use it in anything other than the simple import this dependency mode. I spent a hell hole of a day or two, trying to pick up a dependency outside cargo because it didn't behave in a way that meshed with the rest of my build environment.

So, yes it handles a couple of the basic cases, but then your out of luck, stuck in a version hell/etc because rustc and cargo are so tightly integrated and the flags needed to emulate some of the behavior with just the compiler are poorly documented and/or version dependent.

It dictates, you conform (which is basically the rust way).

The problem with the typical rants about C++ is that you guys are outdated.

With Conan you can consume over 1,000 packages directly from build systems and with way more control than what Cargo seems to offer. Take a look. I did use it for a while and compared to 15 years ago things are way better now.

The problem isn't that Conan exists, but that other competing solutions are just as popular which results in fragmentation (for instance vcpkg, and cmake can also directly pull in external dependencies now). In the Rust world there's just Cargo.

Not really, Android and Fuchsia have their own cargo replacements, that fit better on their OS SDKs.

Either that, or we get a box of surprises in each build.rs script.

Competing solutions are great for innovation.

In the world of build systems, I think most people want a little more consistency and a little less innovation. Sometimes a tool should just do its job and broadly resemble other tools in the space.

Fragmentation is not the problem. The future of C++ is to have metadata exchange, at least the way I see it.

This means that packages can be compiled with any build system, the one that fits you better. In the event that you cannot find a binary that fits you, your package manager can compile on the fly. There are also solutions to keep binary artifacts in Conan. This means that most of the time you can consume pre-made packages in vcpkg/Conan for casual consumption but you can still have binary repositories with fully customized builds for all your permutations of compilers and systems and debug/release. Do not forget this is a hard problem, we are talking to compilation to native, sometimes you need full speed and a custom compilation, not about portable Java bytecode.

But you can still set up and tweak recipes in Conan and upload to your binary repository (what we do at my company).

However, none of these things tie you to a build system, since conan can generate .pc, .cmake, MSBuild, XCode and way more metadata to consume those packages.

You can scale from simple to fully customized. For example before we had a libcxx that we compiled ourselves and pointed all deps and patched packages and could build something with like twenty-some dependencies with that customized libcxx optimized for us. Can you do that with Cargo? Serious question, I did not make extensive use of it.

However for simple uses you can just drop a conanfile.txt and conan install your profile and start to consume your packages. All of this works with CMake, but if I want to use Meson build system or SCons, Make and others I can do it as well. Look at the generators page: https://docs.conan.io/en/latest/reference/generators.html

I do not think fragmentation in build systems is even a real problem anymore because the "not fragmented but simple" philosophy leaves many things out of the box, such as compiling something custom when you really need it.

The system is very flexible. True that the learning curve is harder at first, but much simpler than it used to be in the past.

I can have full projects, not even with Conan, just with simple Meson wraps (Meson wraps are source-only dependencies though) pointing interdependencies to the same version of a library with a very reasonable amount of work: sometimes a single switch in the options, sometimes a small patch that you can keep in your subprojects/ directory or somewhere else.

I can easily generate .cmake and .pc files from Meson itself without trouble, which are two of the most used build systems. But if on top of that you build a Conan recipe then you can have many consumers of your packages for free.

It is nice to have a tool that is more ore less streamlined sometimes, but build systems is a difficult topic and probably there are some that do a few things better than others: cross-compilation, linux tweaks, generating VS solutions for you if your company uses VS, XCode or whatever. It is not bad to have a choice as long as you can interchange.

I would say it is even better than having the one-size-fits-all thing and later when you want to go to the real native stuff then you discover that your tool is too basic and cannot switch.

> In the Rust world there's just Cargo.

While not nearly as popular as Cargo (due to being blessed by the core team), Rust still has multiple build tools and package managers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com