Article by Ayman Alheraki on January 11 2026 10:37 AM
One of the most common dilemmas advanced developers face—especially those working on low-level systems, compilers, or development platforms—is:
“Should I rely on existing, proven tools, or build my own tools from scratch for greater control and independence?”
In this article, we’ll discuss the topic from several angles: technical, strategic, economic, and even philosophical.
When you build your own tools:
You control every line of code.
You’re not tied to updates from third-party providers that may break your system.
You can adapt the tools to work with any architecture or operating system without limitations.
For example: If you're building a new operating system or a deeply customized platform, having your own debugger or assembler gives you complete freedom and deep understanding of your system.
Some open-source tools are massive, complex, and may contain vulnerabilities that are hard to audit.
By building your own, you reduce reliance on potentially insecure components.
You can design tools with your own security models and constraints in mind.
General-purpose tools are built for all use cases. Custom tools can:
Be optimized for the exact environment you’re targeting.
Drop unnecessary features.
Be smaller, faster, and more responsive.
Building a robust linker or debugger may take months—or even years.
Maintenance, bug fixing, and documentation become an ongoing burden.
In a company setting, this could drain development resources from your core product.
Often, it's smarter to use LLVM, GDB, or NASM—tools that are mature, well-documented, and battle-tested.
Instead of building your own, you can wrap or extend existing tools to fit your system.
Every hour spent building tooling is an hour not spent developing your unique system features or product innovations.
In a competitive market, speed-to-market often outweighs technical purity.
Your project is long-term and requires full technical independence.
You’re targeting niche or specialized environments (e.g., embedded systems or exotic architectures).
You have a skilled team capable of low-level development.
Security and control are critical concerns.
Time to market matters, and deadlines are tight.
Your budget is limited, and you need to prioritize features or usability.
Existing tools already meet your needs and don’t hinder your innovation.
You mentioned that you intend to build a system that requires:
A Debugger
A Linker
An Assembler for different operating systems and processor architectures.
This is a platform-level project, potentially like an OS or custom development environment.
Here’s a suggestion table:
| Tool | Build or Use Existing? | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Assembler | Use existing ones at first (like NASM, FASM, or LLVM Assembler) | Later, build your own if needed for full control or architecture support. |
| Linker | Use ld, lld, or gold initially | Build your own only if you need deeply customized linking behavior. |
| Debugger | Use GDB, LLDB, or QEMU as a base | Create custom debugging interfaces as needed over time. |
This isn’t a black-and-white issue. It depends on your project, goals, timelines, and technical depth.
As the saying goes:"It’s not wrong to reinvent the wheel — just make sure it’s a better wheel."
Yes — technical independence is a noble and sometimes essential goal, especially for strategic, long-term projects.
But independence doesn’t mean doing everything from scratch. It means:
Understanding all your dependencies.
Having a roadmap to replace or control those dependencies when needed.
Designing your system core to adapt to changes in tools and environments.
Start with open-source, battle-tested tools. Wrap them in abstraction layers so they integrate cleanly into your project. Then, gradually replace parts of the toolchain with your own components as your system matures.
That way, you get the best of both worlds:
Speed and stability during early development.
Long-term independence and optimization.