Show HN: I built a Cargo-like build tool for C/C++ (github.com)
Every time I wanted to start something new I'd spend the first hour writing CMakeLists.txt, figuring out find_package, copying boilerplate from my last project, and googling why my library isn't linking. By the time the project was actually set up I'd lost all momentum.
So, I built Craft - a lightweight build and workflow tool for C and C++. Instead of writing CMake, your project configuration goes in a simple craft.toml:
[project]
name = "my_app"
version = "0.1.0"
language = "c"
c_standard = 99
[build]
type = "executable"
craft add --git https://github.com/raysan5/raylib --links raylib
craft add --path ../my_library
craft add sfml
Other Craft features: craft init - adopt an existing C/C++ project into Craft or initialize an empty directory. craft template - save any project structure as a template to be initialized later. craft gen - generate header and source files with starter boilerplate code. craft upgrade - keeps itself up to date.
CMakeLists.extra.cmake for anything that Craft does not yet handle.
Cross platform - macOS, Linux, Windows.
It is still early (I just got it to v1.0.0) but I am excited to be able to share it and keep improving it.
Would love feedback. Please also feel free to make pull requests if you want to help with development!
58 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 82.5 ms ] threadBut how this tool figures out where the header files and build instructions for the libraries are that are included? Any expected layout or industry wide consensus?
Here's my feeble attempt using Deno as base (it's extremely opinionated though and mostly for personal use in my hobby projects):
https://github.com/floooh/fibs
One interesting chicken-egg-problem I couldn't solve is how to figure out the C/C++ toolchain that's going to be used without running cmake on a 'dummy project file' first. For some toolchain/IDE combos (most notably Xcode and VStudio) cmake's toolchain detection takes a lot of time unfortunately.
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?
Not sure how big your plans are.
My thoughts would be to start as a cmake generator but to eventually replace it. Maybe optionally.
And to integrate suppoet for existing package managers like vcpkg.
At the same time, I'd want to remain modular enough that's it's not all or nothing. I also don't like locking.
But right now package management and build system are decoupled completely. And they are not like that in other ecosystems.
For example, Cmake can use vcpkg to install a package but then I still have to write more cmake to actually find and use it.
What I've been doing to manage dependencies in a way that doesn't depress me much has been Nix flakes, which allows me a pretty straightforward `nix build` with the correct dependencies built in.
I'm just a bit curious though; a lot of C libraries are system-wide, and usually require the system package manager (e.g. libsdl2-dev) does this have an elegant way to handle those?
I'm sorry I have to be a downer, but the fact is if you can use the word "I" your package manager is obviously not powerful enough for the real world.
The problem is one of Tooling & Methodology. Not just tooling.
There is no divide between tools/methods - although there is often a massive conflict over methods, and thus tools, implying a relationship - but in fact both tooling and methodology need to be aligned or else poor tools are created.
There is much discussion about ‘the build problem’, but it is just as much an issue of solving ‘the method problem’.
For example, a vast majority of the problems of building software can be solved by using Docker (a method), or indeed adding new methods for various situations - i.e. embedded: compiler-onboard vs. cross-compiling, games: —march, etc.
I think the “I and Your” part of your position is ineffective - better to think of it as ‘a tool I/others want to use’ and ‘a method I/others agree to use’, where: tools and methods are aligned in equilibrium for the duration of the project (in an ideal case).
It’s ineffective because of the difference in effect between ‘want’ and ‘agree’ on that equilibrium.
Some methods, a person may not necessarily want to use - but agree to do so, because there is a local tool to assist with the method. Some tools, people will violently refuse to use because they despise the implied method and will never agree to it; sometimes, people get fired for not aligning methodology - but also often for writing a tool nobody (or hardly ever anybody) ever uses/can use/wants to use. (There’s a whole world of software that only one guy knows how to wrangle because they ‘built a better build system’…)
Apropos the “Yet Another C/C++ Configuration/Combobulator” problem, I tend to think the ‘problem with build systems’ is due to the avid desire to just build a new tool to force a new method rather than adopting an existing method and thus using existing tools, and, therefore in my opinion, the fewer new tools in this department, the better… but that’s just me, I’ve been wrangling C/C++ codebases since they were new languages, and I’ve seen some shit, kids ..
The solution is _always_ to align your methods with your fellow user-developers first and then work together on the tooling, old or new… because all software is social, and has a social responsibility to the user, and user-developer tools built to construct software socially, even more so.
https://github.com/xmake-io/xmake
The reason why I like it (beyond ease-of-use) is that it can spit out CMakeLists.txt and compile_commands.json for IDE/LSP integration and also supports installing Conan/vcpkg libraries or even Git repos.
Then you use it likeAnother comment suggested batch files - these do zero out of three.
It's similar, but designed for an existing ecosystem. Cargo is designed for `cargo`, obviously.
But `pyproject.toml` is designed for the existing tools to all eventually adopt. (As well as new tools, of course.)
C++ build system, at the core, boils down to calling gcc foo.c -o foo.obj / link foo.obj foo.exe (please forgive if I got they syntax wrong).
Sure, you have more .c files, and you pass some flags but that's the core.
I've recently started a new C++ program from scratch.
What build system did I write?
I didn't. I told Claude:
"Write a bun typescript script build.ts that compiles the .cpp files with cl and creates foo.exe. Create release and debug builds, trigger release build with -release cmd-line flag".
And it did it in minutes and it worked. And I can expand it with similar instructions. I can ask for release build with all the sanitize flags and claude will add it.
The particulars don't matter. I could have asked for a makefile, or cmake file or ninja or a script written in python or in ruby or in Go or in rust. I just like using bun for scripting.
The point is that in the past I tried to learn cmake and good lord, it's days spent learning something that I'll spent 1 hr using.
It just doesn't make sense to learn any of those tools given that claude can give me working any build system in minutes.
It makes even less sense to create new build tools. Even if you create the most amazing tool, I would still choose spending a minute asking claude than spending days learning arbitrary syntax of a new tool.
- (1) Provide a way to compile without internet access and specify the associated dependencies path manually. This is absolutely critical.
Most 'serious' multi-language package managers and integration systems are building in a sandbox without internet access for security reasons and reproducibility reasons.
If your build system does not allow to build offline and with manually specified dependencies, you will make life of integrators and package managers miserable and they will avoid your project.
(2) Never ever build in '-03 -march=native' by default. This is always a red flag and a sign of immaturity. People expect code to be portable and shippable.
Good default options should be CMake equivalent of "RelWithDebInfo" (meaning: -O2 -g -DNDEBUG ).
-O3 can be argued. -march=native is always always a mistake.
- (3) Allow your build tool to be built by an other build tool (e.g CMake).
Anybody caring about reproducibility will want to start from sources, not from a pre-compiled binary. This also matter for cross compilation.
- (4) Please offer a compatibility with pkg-config (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkg-config) and if possible CPS (https://cps-org.github.io/cps/overview.html) for both consumption and generation.
They are what will allow interoperability between your system and other build systems.
- (5) last but not least: Consider seriously the cross-compilation use case.
It is common in the world of embedded systems to cross compile. Any build system that does not support cross-compilation will be de facto banned from the embedded domain.
I have an even stronger sentiment regarding cross compilation though - In any build system, I think the distinction between “cross” and “non-cross” compilation is an anti-pattern.
Always design build systems assuming cross compilation. It hurts nothing if it just so happens that your host and target platform/architecture end up being the same, and saves you everything down the line if you need to also build binaries for something else.
Also the problem isn't creating a cargo like tool for C and C++, that is the easy part, the problem is getting more userbase than vcpkg or conan for it to matter for those communities.
- skipping cmake completely? would this be feasible?
- integration of other languages in the project?
- how to handle qt?
Feasible but difficult. CMake has a tremendous user mass, so you do want to be able to use a CMake-based project as a dependency. The CMake Target/Config export system expose CMake internals and make that difficult to consume a CMake built project without CMake.
The cleanest way to do that is probably what xmake is doing: Calling cmake and extract targets information from CMake to your own build system with some scripting. It is flaky but xmake has proven it is doable.
That's said: CPS should make that easier on the longer term.
Please also consider that CMake is doing a lot of work under the hood to contains compiler quirks that you will have to do manually.
> integration of other languages in the project?
Trying to integrate higher level languages (Python, JS) in package managers of lower level languages (C, C++) is generally a bad idea.
The dependency relation is inverted and interoperability betweens package managers is always poor. Diamond dependency and conflicting versions will become quickly a problem.
I would advise to just expose properly your build system with the properties I described and use a multi-language package manager (e.g Nix) or, at default, the higher level language package manager (e.g uv with a scikit-build-core equivalent) on top of that.
This will be one order of magnitude easier to do.
> how to handle qt?
Qt is nothing special to handle.
Qt is a multi language framework (C++, MOC, QML, JS and even python for PySide) and need to be handle as such.
CMake is a combination of a warthog of a specification language, and mechanisms for handling a zillion idiosyncracies and corners cases of everything.
I doubt than < 10,000 lines of C code can cover much of that.
I am also doubtful that developers are able to express the exact relations and semantic nuances they want to, as opposed to some default that may make sense for many projects, but not all.
Still - if it helps people get started on simpler or more straightforward projects - that's neat :-)