nx-recipes VS monorepo.tools

You can also browse them in the nx-recipes GitHub repository.

We're also proud of all the new examples we've added in the last months. We have a brand new Nx Recipe repo with a variety of example projects that showcase Nx in combination with different technologies, even outside the JS ecosystem (e.g. with Rust, Go and .Net).

Go check it out at https://github.com/nrwl/nx-recipes and let us know in the comments if there are more recipes you'd like to see or if you want to see videos made from any of the existing recipes!

And you can see and clone the workspace we'll create here.

Nx Recipes

You can find an example of such setup on the Nx Recipe GitHub repository: https://github.com/nrwl/nx-recipes/tree/main/pnpm-workspace

I'm surprised this isn't getting any attention. Reading the docs, sounds very promising, thanks for creating this! I see Nx, Turbo and Moon being mentioned in passing in [Alternatives & pitfalls](https://onerepo.tools/concepts/why-onerepo/#alternatives--pi...), but a more in-depth comparison would be interesting. At least something that could be a column in the table at the bottom of [monorepo.tools](https://monorepo.tools/#tools-review).

> I don't think anyone coming from a multi-repo world really understands the full implications of a monorepo until they've worked in a large scale one

That's entirely fair. My sole experience is the one black-sheep monorepo at my own relatively-recently joined company, which is nowhere even close to approaching true large scale.

Genuine question, though - what _are_ the advantages, as you see them (you didn't explicitly say as much, but I'm reading between the lines that you _can_ see some)? Every positive claim I've seen (primarily at https://monorepo.tools/, but also elsewhere) feels either flimsy, or outright false:

* "No overhead to create new projects - Use the existing CI setup" - I'm pretty confident that the amount of DX tooling work to make it super-smooth to create a new project is _dwarfed_ by the amount of work to make monorepos...work...

* "Atomic commits across projects // One version of everything" - this is...actively bad? If I make a change to my library, I also have to change every consumer of it (or, worse, synchronize with them to make their changes at the same time before I can merge)? Whereas, in a polyrepo situation, I can publish the new version of my library, and decoupled consumers can update their consumption when they want to

* "Developer mobility - Get a consistent way of building and testing applications" - it's perfectly easy to have a consistent experience across polyrepos, and or to have an inconsistent one in a monorepo. In fairness I will concede that a monorepo makes a consistent experience more _likely_, but that's a weak advantage at best. Monorepos _do_ make it significantly harder to _deliberately_ use different languages in different services, though, which is a perfectly cromulent thing to permit.

The section on what monorepo tools should provide is useful if you are planning to set up an enterprise-level monorepo.

The next step would be to familiarize yourself with the codebase. Most of the repositories use monorepos for organizing and managing their code. A rule of the thumb here would be to make yourself familiar with what component lies in which place. It is next to impossible to understand the entire codebase at once. For starters, you can:

Monorepos are a great concept, especially in environments like Node.js which encourage having many small packages.

You might want to use monorepo tooling like NX, Lerna, or Turborepo to guide you. https://monorepo.tools/ has a list of tools.

This explains it really well: https://monorepo.tools/

Have a look here to get some good context around monorepo tooling and if it’s something you actually need and want to do - https://monorepo.tools Some of the monorepo tooling can be a steep learning curve so you want to really think about the problem you are trying to solve and whether the effort will be worth it