Starlark vs CMake

Developers should learn Starlark when working with Bazel or other build systems that adopt it, such as Buck or Pants, as it is essential for defining complex, scalable build configurations in large codebases meets developers should learn cmake when working on c, c++, or other compiled language projects that need to be built on multiple platforms (e. Here's our take.

Starlark

Nice Pick

Developers should learn Starlark when working with Bazel or other build systems that adopt it, such as Buck or Pants, as it is essential for defining complex, scalable build configurations in large codebases

Pros

• It is particularly valuable in monorepo environments where reproducible builds and fast incremental compilation are critical, such as in Google's internal infrastructure or open-source projects like TensorFlow and Kubernetes
• Related to: bazel, build-systems

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

CMake

Developers should learn CMake when working on C, C++, or other compiled language projects that need to be built on multiple platforms (e

Pros

• g
• Related to: c-plus-plus, make

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Starlark is a language while CMake is a tool. We picked Starlark based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Starlark wins

Based on overall popularity. Starlark is more widely used, but CMake excels in its own space.