ffead-cpp VS shellb

You are partially correct, the framework provides an option to change the backend to any engine (embedded, nginx, apache, picov, rust, c, java, d, js, julia, go, crystal etc), the framework provides integration to all the I/O multiplexing techniques available out there. But I would not reject it plainly with just a single line, more so because "I have built it", whereas for you, you totally have the right to do so, but I would request you to go through the code and also look at areas you may not have browsed earlier and provide any other critical comments you might have missed earlier, that would provide a comprehensive critical review of the framework which will definitely help me improve upon the framework

Great question, initially I was aware of only plain old makefiles, this was back in 2010, then I came to know about autoconf which was a huge pain, then picked up cmake which was slightly better and stable, then I read about xmake, then meson, then scons and integrated all of them by hand, finally a couple of years ago, I was overwhelmed with the incremental changes to the framework causing build files to change and I was not able to keep up, so wanted something super easy and simple and hence create a simple stupid build tool called shellb. Then was reading about sandboxed builds and started working on bazel I had made a resolution to not write any more build files for any new tools, so integrated the generator within shellb, just last month heard about buck and then buck2 and incorporated buck2 generator within shellb too. So honestly if you ask me, as of today I know most of the tools inside out, and have auto-generated build files for bazel and buck2. Thanks for the interest and the lovely question.