bazel-compile-commands-extractor VS rules_python

It feels like there's zero tooling for bazel, even the C++ solution for Bazel, which is what I use for C++ is kind of a hack as opposed to first-class support backed by Google, like the IntelliJ plugin. Am I missing something or is it just that just all the Java people at Google use IntelliJ so they don't invest into other options?

I think the recommendation for c/c++ in Bazel is to use this: https://github.com/hedronvision/bazel-compile-commands-extra...

And use the compile command json file to power clangd. I'm not a vscode person but I would hope the vscode c++ plugin would support that

Can you elaborate? Is there a native way? I am using https://github.com/hedronvision/bazel-compile-commands-extractor

I don’t have any experience with bazel, but the only requirement for my setup is to have a “compile_commands.json” file generated by the build system. As far as I see, this extension provides the required functionality: https://github.com/hedronvision/bazel-compile-commands-extractor.

Yes, you can use Bazel-compile-commands-extractor to generate a compile_commands.json, assuming you are using clangd.

https://github.com/hedronvision/bazel-compile-commands-extractor is probably better.

What's SV?

I honestly don't know why anyone would use that... as in what does Bazel do better than virtually anything else that can provide this functionality. But, I used to be an ops engineer in a big company which wanted everything to be Maven, regardless of whether it does it well or not. So we built and deployed with Maven a lot of weird and unrelated stuff.

Not impossible, but not anything I'd advise anyone to do on their free time.

Specifically wrt' the link you posted, if you look here: https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python/blob/main/python/... it says that only pure Python wheels are supported, but that's also a lie, they don't support half of the functionality of pure Python wheels.

So, definitely not worth using, since lots of functionality is simply not there.

Regarding bazel, the rules_python has a py_wheel rule that helps you creating wheels that you can upload to pypi (https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python/blob/52e14b78307a...).

If you want to see an approach of bazel to pypi taken a bit to the extreme you can have a look at tensorflow on GitHub to see how they do it. They don't use the above-mentioned building rule because I think their build step is quite complicated (C/C++ stuff, Vida/ROCm support, python bindings, and multiOS support all in one before you can publish to pypi).

Python support in Bazel now looks more promising with `rules_python`: https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python

`rules_go` to my understanding is great too.

Over years, Bazel is not as opinionated as before, mostly because adoptions in different orgs force it to be so.

I have personally run converted build systems to Bazel, and use it for personal projects as well.

Bazel 1.0 was released in October 2019. If you were using it "a few years ago", I'm guessing you were using a pre-1.0 version. There's not some cutoff where Bazel magically got easy to use, and I still wouldn't describe it as "easy", but the problem it solves is hard to solve well, and the community support for Bazel has gotten a lot better over the past years.

https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python

The difficulty and complexity of using Bazel is highly variable. I've seen some projects where using Bazel is just super simple and easy, and some projects where using Bazel required a massive effort (custom toolchains and the like).

load("@bazel_tools//tools/build_defs/repo:http.bzl", "http_archive") #------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Python #------------------------------------------------------------------------------ # enable python rules http_archive( name = "rules_python", url = "https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_python/releases/download/0.2.0/rules_python-0.2.0.tar.gz", sha256 = "778197e26c5fbeb07ac2a2c5ae405b30f6cb7ad1f5510ea6fdac03bded96cc6f", )