What are good alternatives to Module::Build vs ExtUtils::MakeMaker, and how do they compare?

When it comes to building and managing Perl modules, developers often consider various tools. Two popular choices are Module::Build and ExtUtils::MakeMaker. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, making them suitable for different scenarios.

Module::Build

Module::Build is an alternative to ExtUtils::MakeMaker and is designed to provide a more modern and flexible approach to building Perl modules. It uses a Perl-based build system and is better suited for modules that require a more complicated build process.

• Pros:
  • More intuitive API for handling complex builds.
  • Doesn't require a Makefile, using a simpler process.
  • Better handling of dependencies and test scripts.
• Cons:
  • Less documentation available compared to ExtUtils::MakeMaker.
  • Some legacy systems may not support it well.

ExtUtils::MakeMaker

ExtUtils::MakeMaker is the traditional method for writing Perl module Makefiles. It's widely used and has been battle-tested over the years. It generates a Makefile that can be used to build, test, and install your Perl modules.

• Pros:
  • Robust documentation and widely adopted.
  • Compatible with many legacy systems.
  • Supports CPAN distributions effectively.
• Cons:
  • More complex and less intuitive API.
  • Relies on a Makefile, which can complicate certain builds.

Conclusion

Choosing between Module::Build and ExtUtils::MakeMaker ultimately depends on your specific needs. For modern, complex projects, Module::Build may be the better option. For compatibility and simplicity in traditional setups, ExtUtils::MakeMaker remains a solid choice.

Example

use Module::Build;

my $build = Module::Build->new(
    module_name => 'MyModule',
    license     => 'perl',
    create_extra => {
        my_extra_file => 'extra_value',
    },
);
$build->create_build_script();