The Bazel one made me chuckle - I worked at a company with an scm & build setup clearly inspired by Google’s setup. As a non-ex-Googler, I found it obviously insane, but there was just no way to get traction on that argument. I love that the rest of this list is pretty cut and dry, but Bazel is the one thing that the author can’t bring themself to say “don’t regret” even though they clearly don’t regret not using it.
I've seen Bazel reduce competent engineers to tears. There was a famous blog post a half-decade ago called something like "Bazel is the worst build system, except for all the others" and this still seems to ring true for me today.
There are some teams I work with that we'll never bother to make use Bazel because we know in advance that it would cripple them.
Having led a successful Bazel migration, I'd still recommend many projects to stick to the native or standard supported toolchain until there's a good reason to migrate to a build system (And I don't consider GitHub actions to be a build system).
I’m curious, what do you find insane about Bazel? In my experience it makes plenty of sense. And after using it for some months, I find more insane how build systems like CMake depend on you having some stuff preinstalled in your system and produce a different result depending on which environment they’re run on.
