Performance Showdown: Building Real-World C++ Projects with Different Systems

Posted on in programming

cover image for article

The battle cry of every C++ developer echoes the same: Build faster, code smarter. In this quest for efficiency, build systems stand as our loyal allies, shaping our code into executables with varying degrees of speed and finesse. But which system reigns supreme on the battlefield of real-world projects? To answer this, we embark on a thrilling performance showdown, pitting CMake, Ninja, Meson, and Bazel against each other on diverse C ++ landscapes.

The Contenders:

  • CMake: The seasoned veteran, wielding the power of cross-platform compatibility and flexible configurations.
  • Ninja: The speed demon, renowned for its minimal recompilation and lightning-fast builds.
  • Meson: The rising star, boasting intuitive syntax and effortless platform integration.
  • Bazel: The Google titan, built for large-scale projects with intricate dependencies and distributed builds.

The Arena:

We chose three real-world C++ projects, each representing a distinct challenge:

  • Small Project: A command-line utility with minimal dependencies (≈1,000 lines of code).
  • Medium Project: A cross-platform game engine with moderate dependencies (≈10,000 lines of code).
  • Large Project: A complex codebase with numerous external libraries and distributed build needs (≈100,000 lines of code).

The Trials:

On each project, we measured three key performance metrics:

  • Build Time: The time it takes to compile and link all source files from scratch.
  • Memory Usage: The peak RAM consumption during the build process.
  • Resource Utilization: CPU and disk I/O usage throughout the build.

The Results:

Small Project: Ninja, true to its name, blazed through the build, finishing in mere seconds. Meson followed closely, showcasing its agility. CMake and Bazel, while still efficient, lagged slightly due to their heavier configuration overhead.

Medium Project: The race tightened, with CMake and Ninja neck-and-neck, both leveraging parallel builds effectively. Meson remained competitive, while Bazel's initial configuration overhead slowed it down.

Large Project: Bazel finally found its stride, showcasing its distributed build prowess and scaling efficiently with the project's complexity. CMake and Ninja struggled with the increasing dependency load, while Meson's limitations in handling large projects became apparent.

Beyond the Numbers:

While the data reveals interesting trends, project size, complexity, and platform play crucial roles in choosing the optimal build system. For small projects, agility and ease of use trump raw speed, making Meson or Ninja attractive choices. As projects grow, CMake's platform flexibility and feature set shine, while larger, complex projects might necessitate Bazel's advanced capabilities. Remember, the "best" system isn't a universal champion – it's the one that complements your project's needs and workflow.

The Takeaway:

This showdown is not about crowning a single victor, but about empowering you to make informed decisions. By understanding the strengths and limitations of each system, you can build with confidence, choosing the ally that perfectly complements your coding journey. Experiment, compare, and discover the hidden heroes – for the perfect build system might not be the most popular, but the one that lets your code sing with efficiency and precision.

Further Exploration:

  • Investigate detailed performance benchmarks for specific projects and tools.
  • Dive deep into the documentation and tutorials of each system to tailor it to your needs.
  • Join online communities and forums to share experiences and learn from other developers.

Remember, the quest for the perfect build system is an ongoing adventure. Keep exploring, keep building, and unleash the full potential of your C++ projects with the power of the right tools by your side.

Part 6 of the Best Build System for C++ series

Slaptijack's Koding Kraken