|
|
|
|
|
|
by 90s_dev
402 days ago
|
|
|
> It started with a simple frustration: why do I need 50 lines of CMake or Conan config just to use a GitHub library? And what answer did you reach? When is it legitimately appropriate? What do we lose out on by using your utility that these older tools do take care of? |
|
|
Yes, Zyn started from the simple frustration of needing 50+ lines of boilerplate just to try a GitHub library. My answer was: for most projects, that level of complexity isn't necessary. So I built a tool that does the common 80% use case in 1% of the effort. One line of config, and you're ready to go.
When is CMake or Conan legitimately appropriate? Absolutely — when you're working with complex multi-platform targets, ABI constraints, custom toolchains, or need deep CI/CD and IDE integration. Those tools are mature and powerful for a reason.
What do you lose by using Zyn today? Mainly fine-grained control: custom build steps, cross-compilation, binary caching, platform-specific configs — Zyn doesn't try to solve all that (yet). It's intentionally minimal.
But here's the key part: We do plan to grow in that direction. Future versions of Zyn will support IDE project generation, CI/CD workflows, cross-compilation setups, and even plugin extensibility. The goal is to keep the simplicity, while expanding capability.
For now, Zyn is a productivity-first tool — and I think there's room for that in the C/C++ ecosystem.