> If you don't work at Google, convincing your engineering organization into learning Bazel is almost always a non-starter. Who uses Bazel in the wild? Xooglers primarily.

My response shows these hypotheses to be false. You’re correct, no one’s arguing whether Bazel is useful or worthwhile, not even I.

> Large companies […] who can support Basel within an engineering organization definitely exist.

Ok great, we agree. You’ve revised your point from earlier.

> There’s probably a few Xooglers […]

A baseless hypothesis that’s confirmed false by all the references shared with you. Feel free to plug all the lead engineers’ names into LinkedIn to verify that the majority are not ex-Google.

> Bazel-lite may be enough.

Sure, it may be. That’s why I’m offering the constructive feedback to go talk to the thousands of active Bazel users to see whether and what they want from a Bazel-lite, if that’s the positioning Moonrepo wants to choose.

Usually, there’s a strong rationale and need behind an organization’s adoption of Bazel. Some of that rationale is captured in the references shared earlier. These organizations need Bazel; they’re generally happier with Bazel than their previous systems. These baseline needs represent table stakes for any build system that wants to compete with Bazel.

If Moonrepo wants to compete where Bazel is weak, then I’m suggesting that they need to sharpen their communication such that an engineer well-versed in Bazel has an “aha!” moment within 2 minutes. The proverbial elevator pitch.

Once again, I’m not dissuading Moonrepo from pursuing their vision. I’m offering constructive feedback on their messaging/positioning — the type of feedback I’d like to hear as a founder.