That is what I am usually annoyed by when reading discussions like that. Someone assumes a context and throws in his experience like it would be applicable to every company and every project. Using their own definitions for industry buzzwords and by that making it more confusing for others, where those others start doing the same again as a response which brings nothing to the general understanding of things.
When reading article I assumed author was not going to tackle project with multiple teams. I expect he was writing about a lot of projects that don't ever live to need more teams. You have a lot of projects where you have 10-15 devs as one team on it and those are huge projects but there are no downsides of a monorepo because it still works fine and is single repo/application.
I would say monorepo should be defined as: repo where you have all projects for a company that don't need to be linked in any way. Because what I understand gave start to the term was Google having such use case, where they wanted ALL things in one repo.
Having one project in one repository cannot be named "monorepo" that is just normal repository and that's what monolith in a single repo is.
When reading article I assumed author was not going to tackle project with multiple teams. I expect he was writing about a lot of projects that don't ever live to need more teams. You have a lot of projects where you have 10-15 devs as one team on it and those are huge projects but there are no downsides of a monorepo because it still works fine and is single repo/application.
I would say monorepo should be defined as: repo where you have all projects for a company that don't need to be linked in any way. Because what I understand gave start to the term was Google having such use case, where they wanted ALL things in one repo.
Having one project in one repository cannot be named "monorepo" that is just normal repository and that's what monolith in a single repo is.