Compare CMake and GNU Make 
- Users report that GNU Make has a steeper learning curve compared to CMake, with a rating of 6.9 for ease of use, while CMake scores slightly lower at 6.6, indicating that users find CMake more approachable for beginners.
- Reviewers mention that GNU Make excels in its simplicity and directness for small projects, which is reflected in its higher score of 9.4 for meeting requirements, compared to CMake's 8.4, suggesting that GNU Make is often preferred for straightforward build processes.
- G2 users highlight that CMake's cross-platform capabilities are a significant advantage, allowing for easier integration with various IDEs and build systems, which is a feature that GNU Make lacks, making CMake more versatile for larger, multi-platform projects.
- Users on G2 report that the quality of support for GNU Make is rated at 7.5, slightly higher than CMake's 7.2, indicating that users feel they receive better assistance and resources when using GNU Make.
- Reviewers mention that both products have similar product direction ratings of 7.1, but users feel that CMake is more actively developed with frequent updates, which may lead to better long-term viability.
- Users say that GNU Make is often favored for its performance in smaller, simpler projects, while CMake is praised for its advanced features like out-of-source builds and better dependency management, making it a better choice for complex applications.
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...
I always works as advertised, and there is a tremendous amount of community knowledge about its characteristics and idiosyncrasies.
Documentation is cumbersome and advanced features are plentiful, making it even more of a pain to optimize and efficiently use make.
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 always works as advertised, and there is a tremendous amount of community knowledge about its characteristics and idiosyncrasies.
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...
Documentation is cumbersome and advanced features are plentiful, making it even more of a pain to optimize and efficiently use make.
