Meson vs. CMake: A Fair Comparison of Modern Build Systems

Both Meson and CMake are modern build systems, but they have different design philosophies and trade-offs. This article provides a fair comparison to determine which is better suited for different types of projects.

1. Age and Maturity

• CMake: Released in 2000, it has been the de facto standard for C++ projects for over two decades. Many major projects, including Qt, LLVM, and KDE, use CMake.

• Meson: Released in 2012, it is a newer build system designed to be more user-friendly and optimized for performance.

Winner: CMake (more mature and widely adopted).

2. Ease of Use

• CMake:

  • Uses its own scripting language (CMakeLists.txt).

  • Has a steep learning curve due to complex syntax and features.

  • Modern CMake (post-3.0) has improved usability with a target-based approach.

• Meson:

  • Uses a Python-like syntax (meson.build).

  • Easier to read and write, especially for new users.

  • Has a more declarative approach, making dependencies and targets clearer.

Winner: Meson (simpler and more readable syntax).

3. Performance

• CMake:

  • Generates Makefiles or Ninja files but is relatively slow in configuration due to multiple passes.

  • Performance depends on the chosen backend (Make, Ninja, etc.).

• Meson:

  • Uses Ninja as the default backend, making it much faster than CMake for most builds.

  • Optimized for speed, typically 2-10 times faster in configuring projects.

Winner: Meson (faster build system configuration).

4. Platform and Tool Support

• CMake:

  • Works on Windows, macOS, Linux, and even embedded systems.

  • Supports Make, Ninja, MSBuild, and Xcode as backends.

  • Deep integration with IDEs like CLion, Visual Studio, and Qt Creator.

• Meson:

  • Also works on Windows, macOS, Linux.

  • Primarily supports Ninja, with limited support for Visual Studio and Xcode.

  • Less IDE integration than CMake.

Winner: CMake (more backend and IDE support).

5. Dependency Management

• CMake:

  • Uses find_package() to locate dependencies, but it often requires manual setup.

  • Can integrate with vcpkg and Conan for dependency management.

• Meson:

  • Uses WrapDB for dependency management (like a package manager).

  • Easier to handle dependencies out-of-the-box.

Winner: Meson (simpler dependency management).

6. Extensibility and Customization

• CMake:

  • Highly extensible via custom CMake scripts.

  • Can be used for complex projects with fine-grained control over build processes.

• Meson:

  • Limited customization compared to CMake.

  • Focuses on simplicity over flexibility.

Winner: CMake (better for advanced and large-scale projects).

7. Adoption and Ecosystem

• CMake:

  • Widely used in industry (Qt, KDE, LLVM, Google projects, etc.).

  • Large community, extensive documentation, and widespread support.

• Meson:

  • Gaining popularity, used in GNOME, X.Org, Mesa, and some gaming projects.

  • Smaller ecosystem compared to CMake.

Winner: CMake (larger adoption and better ecosystem).

Final Verdict: Which One is Best?

• If you want simplicity and fast builds, Meson is a great choice.

• If you work on a large project, need more flexibility, and want better IDE support, CMake is better.

Summary Table

Best for:

• Meson: Small to medium projects, developers who want simplicity.

• CMake: Large projects, cross-platform development, industry adoption.