[mileswjohnson]

A lot of our decisions were based on our past experience with Bazel. We both have worked at companies that tried to use Bazel and failed miserably. There's stuff we like about Bazel (and copied in some capacity, like file groups), and definitely parts we hate about Bazel.

Bazel doesn't work well for every language, but for those languages that it does, it definitely makes sense to use Bazel. For those languages that work better with something more lightweight, that's where moon comes in. I'm assuming you work at Google, so you're experience around Bazel is probably much better than those that don't work at Google.

I appreciate all the feedback and comments though, very much appreciated.

[rfoo]

I see that you are targetting the Web ecosystem. IMO using Bazel in this case was pretty tough, and may still be. The way Bazel does things may not make sense for 95% JS projects (and 99.9% FOSS projects), so I wonder whether it's better to simply drop the mention of Bazel. Just don't compare to Bazel.

Better “monorepo-ish” (whatever that means in the frontend world) tools are still valuable, but as GP said, it's pretty crowded here.

I don't know if you have talked with people working on C++ or Java projects (I see that these are not among your supported languages), but if you do, you get to see why people are talking about Bazel.

[mileswjohnson]

Yeah, we kind of regret mentioning Bazel in the original post, but we can't change it now.