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

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overall reaction

  • Mixed response: some welcome a cargo-like tool to simplify C/C++ project setup; others see “yet another CMake wrapper” as adding complexity instead of solving root problems.
  • Several commenters stress the project is very early; they appreciate the ambition but doubt one person can handle the full real‑world complexity.

CMake vs. “meta-meta” build systems

  • Many argue that layering on top of CMake (a build-system generator) just creates a “build-system generator generator” instead of fixing CMake’s core issues.
  • Others defend CMake as the de facto standard with huge accumulated knowledge about platforms, compilers, IDEs, and edge cases; replacing it is seen as very hard.
  • Some prefer plain Make for simplicity on small projects; others reply that cross-platform, IDE integration, and complex dependency graphs quickly exceed Make’s comfort zone.

Dependency and package management

  • Comparisons drawn to Conan, vcpkg, and xmake; some say these already are the “cargo for C/C++” in practice, especially Conan2 with profiles, ABI modeling, binaries, lockfiles, and cross-compilation.
  • Concern that a new tool without full cross-compilation, offline builds, system-dependency handling, and ABI/version conflict resolution can’t realistically become a universal standard.
  • Requests for integration with existing mechanisms (pkg-config, CPS) and system package managers, plus ability to specify dependencies manually for offline/sandboxed builds.

Cross-platform, toolchains, and performance flags

  • Several emphasize cross-compilation as a first-class requirement (embedded, consoles, different OSes); any tool that treats it as an afterthought is seen as non-viable.
  • Advice to avoid aggressive defaults like -O3 -march=native; considered a red flag for portability and distribution.

Security and installation

  • Strong criticism of curl | sh installer patterns as a supply-chain risk, even if inspired by rustup.
  • Some argue it’s convenient; others insist it’s strictly worse than shipping a static binary.

AI, configuration languages, and ecosystem

  • One camp argues modern AI can generate ad-hoc build scripts on demand, reducing the value of learning or inventing new build DSLs.
  • Others prefer declarative config (e.g., TOML) but warn that non–Turing-complete formats struggle with complex conditional logic.
  • Additional skepticism raised about apparent AI-generated code and descriptions, and about name collisions (e.g., KDE’s existing “Craft” tool).