moon VS hash

(for context - I'm not interested in first class node support)

This seems pretty cool. I particularly like how 'gradual' it seems to be relative to things like Bazel, i.e. you can take some shell scripts and migrate things over. I did have a play and hit an initial problem around project caching I think, which I raised at [0].

One comment, from the paranoid point of view of someone who has built distributed caching build systems before is that your caching is very pessimistic! I understand why you hash outputs by default (as well as inputs), but I think that will massively reduce hit rate a lot of the time when it may not be necessary? I raised [1].

As an aside, I do wish build systems moved beyond the 'file-based' approach to inputs/outputs to something more abstract/extensible. For example, when creating docker images I'd prefer to define an extension that informs the build system of the docker image hash, rather than create marker files on disk (the same is true of initiating rebuilds on environment variable change, which I see moon has some limited support for). It just feels like language agnostic build systems saw the file-based nature of Make and said 'good enough for us' (honorable mention to Shake, which is an exception [2]).

[0] https://github.com/moonrepo/moon/issues/637

There are many tools like Lerna, Nx, Turborepo, Moon, Rush, and Bazel, to name a few. Today, we'll be using Turborepo, as it's lightweight, flexible, and easy to use.

You should give moon a try: https://moonrepo.dev/

The founders of stackoverflow also founded a similar project

https://github.com/hashintel/hash/tree/main/apps/engine

Check out error_stack, which allows attaching custom messages, preserves the original error, and allows exit codes

Feel free to ask me any questions on error-stack, either here or over at our repository!

hashintel/hash#602