Every six months, someone on Twitter reignites the monorepo versus polyrepo war and I lose another year of my life watching people argue about something that HAS NO UNIVERSAL ANSWER. "Monorepos are the future! Google uses one!" Yeah, Google also built their own version control system, their own build system, and employs thousands of infrastructure engineers to make it work. You have seven developers and a GitHub org. You are not Google. Please sit down. "Polyrepos give you true independence!" Cool, enjoy maintaining 47 separate CI pipelines, coordinating releases across 12 repos, and spending half your sprint debugging version mismatches between packages that should have been updated together. Here is the actual answer, and I know people hate this because it is boring: it depends on your team. Small team, tightly coupled services, shared libraries? Monorepo. Just do it. Turborepo has made the tooling story SO much better. I switched three projects to Turborepo last year and my build times dropped by 60% because of the caching. It handles the dependency graph, it handles incremental builds, it handles remote caching. It just works. Large team, genuinely independent services, different deployment cadences? Polyrepo makes sense. Each team owns their repo, their CI, their deploy. Clean boundaries. But here is what NOBODY wants to admit: most teams that choose polyrepo do it because they do not want to invest in monorepo tooling. And most teams that choose monorepo do it because they saw a conference talk. Neither reason is good enough. The tooling question is what actually matters. Lerna is effectively dead, and if you are still using it, I am sorry. Nx is powerful but complex. Turborepo hits the sweet spot for most teams. Pick your tool based on your actual needs, not based on what some influencer recommended. And for the love of everything, stop comparing your setup to FAANG companies. They have different problems than you do. Solve YOUR problems.