Compare CMake and GNU Automake 
- Users report that CMake has a steeper learning curve, with an Ease of Use score of 6.6, while GNU Automake is praised for its user-friendly interface, reflected in its higher score of 8.3. Reviewers mention that the documentation for CMake can be overwhelming for beginners.
- Reviewers mention that CMake excels in handling complex projects and is favored for its flexibility in supporting multiple platforms, while GNU Automake is often highlighted for its simplicity in managing smaller projects, making it a preferred choice for small businesses.
- G2 users report that CMake's Quality of Support is rated at 7.2, which some users find lacking in responsiveness, whereas GNU Automake has a slightly better score of 7.9, with reviewers noting more timely support and helpful community resources.
- Users on G2 mention that CMake's Product Direction score of 7.1 indicates a positive outlook for future updates, with reviewers appreciating its active development and feature enhancements, while GNU Automake's score of 6.8 suggests a more stable but less innovative trajectory.
- Reviewers say that CMake's ability to integrate with various IDEs and build systems is a significant advantage, allowing for greater customization, while GNU Automake is often seen as more straightforward for users who prefer a more traditional build process.
- Users report that CMake's Total Number of Reviews (17) indicates a larger user base, which may contribute to a more extensive community for troubleshooting and sharing best practices, compared to GNU Automake's 11 reviews, suggesting a smaller but dedicated user community.
Once it works, it's great. It's incredibly flexible, dead simple, and Just Works. The GUI is great to use and I frequently switch between it and the command line tool. I have no complaints with using CMake as long as I'm not writing the files...
I'm not a huge fan of the man-esque online documentation, for people who aren't familiar with *n*x man pages a simple search for how to do something could turn into a witch hunt for something which turns out to be a single line. It's intimidating for people...
Make and Makefiles are the historical build system for Unix. Because it is open to any build tool, it is still a relevant standard today. However, to much boilerplate is needed, and Automake, a translator for extended Makefiles, takes care of this. Since...
I dont have anything to say I dislike as I am still learning to use the tool
Once it works, it's great. It's incredibly flexible, dead simple, and Just Works. The GUI is great to use and I frequently switch between it and the command line tool. I have no complaints with using CMake as long as I'm not writing the files...
Make and Makefiles are the historical build system for Unix. Because it is open to any build tool, it is still a relevant standard today. However, to much boilerplate is needed, and Automake, a translator for extended Makefiles, takes care of this. Since...
I'm not a huge fan of the man-esque online documentation, for people who aren't familiar with *n*x man pages a simple search for how to do something could turn into a witch hunt for something which turns out to be a single line. It's intimidating for people...
I dont have anything to say I dislike as I am still learning to use the tool
