> Is there anything left out of the "standard" setup? :)

I don't believe in accepting things just because some engineer choose a default under some deadline 25 years ago

> So you had to alter your project structure to improve build times?

no, the software was designed as-is from the very beginning (and it's an architecture I'd recommend for any software which is supposed to be extensible from its very inception, it worked out very well)

> I don't believe in accepting things just because some engineer choose a default under some deadline 25 years ago

That's not the point. The point is the "standard" is suboptimal enough that you basically have to change it. Don't think that applies to much of the competition (with the exception of Java that isn't really competition?).

> The point is the "standard" is suboptimal enough that you basically have to change it.

but there's no standard, just CMake defaults that I change ? It's not more standard to call /usr/bin/clang++ than /usr/bin/g++ (and if I was running freebsd instead of linux, as far as I know that's what would happen by default) ; likewise, other build systems like Meson use ninja by default (and that does not make ninja any more of a standard than make is when using cmake under GNU/Linux). Those are just tools in a toolbox.