# Tuist Developer platform and command-line tooling for build caching, testing, project generation, and build observability. This is one page of public article previews, not the complete archive. Follow Next page to continue. Summaries are not the original full articles. ## Wise Tech Stack (2025 update) DevFeed: [Wise Tech Stack (2025 update)]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: Milon James Published: 2025-02-12T13:34:08Z Content type: article Language: en Sources: [Wise Engineering - Medium]() Topics: [Development](), [Mobile](), [Web](), [Tuist](), [Storybook](), [Testing](), [build performance]() Tags: [build-times](), [caching](), [data](), [engineering](), [mobile](), [next-js](), [platform](), [storybook](), [swift](), [swift-package-manager](), [tech](), [tech-stack](), [testing](), [tuist](), [update](), [web](), [xcode](), [xcodegen]() ### AI overview Wise's 2025 technology update describes its web, iOS, and Android engineering stack, including Next.js-based web applications, Storybook visual testing, migration from Xcodegen to Tuist, adoption of Swift Package Manager, and Android development across a large Gradle repository. ### Source excerpt Wise Engineering As of the financial year 2025, Wise supports 15.6 million active customers, moving approximately GBP 36 billion across borders each quarter. Approximately 65% of our transfers arrive instantly, and our Wise Platform facilitates payments for banks, financial institutions and enterprises globally. This success is driven by our technology-first approach, robust architecture, and dedicated engineering teams. Photo by Randy Fath on UnsplashHow we work at Wise Wise has more than 850 engineers working across key global locations, organised into independent squads and tribes. These teams are empowered to innovate and make decisions independently, fostering transparency, trust, and collaboration. This article follows our Tech Stack 2022 to cover the most recent improvements in Wise's tech stack that enable us to achieve our mission of money without borders -- instant, convenient, transparent and eventually free. Moving money with WiseOur web and mobile applications Our web applications are built using CRAB (a Wise-specific abstraction on top of the popular Next.js framework) and comprises of 40 distinct apps, each handling specific product functions making deployments safer and more manageable. One of the biggest changes has been in our testing methodology. We've adopted Storybook for visualising individual React components during development. Storybook pairs really well with Chromatic which captures snapshots after each change and can highlight the visual differences in the component. These snapshots are very effective for catching visual regressions during code changes which helps us prevent bugs from reaching our customers. Wise mobile app: faster, smarter, and more efficient Our iOS engineers have upgraded our infrastructure by migrating 250+ Xcode modules from Xcodegen to Tuist and switching from Cocoapods to Swift Package Manager (SPM), unlocking improvements in caching for builds. The team also improved flexibility, reducing zero-change build times from 2 ## Bumble chooses Tuist for iOS project scaling after comparing SPM and Bazel DevFeed: [Bumble chooses Tuist for iOS project scaling after comparing SPM and Bazel]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: Jonathan Crooke Published: 2024-03-12T15:23:14Z Content type: comparison Language: en Sources: [Bumble Tech]() Topics: [Tuist](), [iOS development](), [bazel](), [swift-package-manager](), [Xcode]() Tags: [bazel](), [ios-development](), [swift-package-manager](), [tuist]() ### AI overview In the final part of Bumble's build and project-management overhaul, the team explains why it chose Tuist over Swift Package Manager and Bazel for its iOS project-scaling needs. It found SPM's Xcode integration too slow at its scale and considered Bazel powerful but costly to adopt and maintain. ### Source excerpt Scaling iOS at Bumble: Part 3/3 -- Results and Developer Quality of LifeRecap This is the third and final post in a series on our 2022 & 23 build and project management overhaul. We investigated whether one (or none!) of Swift Package Manager (SPM), Tuist or Bazel would be the tool to overcome our project scaling challenges. In the first post we explained the state-of-play coming into this project. In the second we discussed the results of our proofs of concept. In this post we will explain our conclusions, and talk about the migration project itself. The decisionWe chose Tuist It shouldn't be much surprise that we didn't choose SPM. In fact, we found it to be entirely unsuitable for our use case. This isn't to say that SPM is a poor tool in general -- far from it. Initially we would have preferred to adopt it, however we couldn't ignore the fact that, at least regarding its Xcode-integration, SPM exhibits unacceptably poor performance for our use case, and at our current scale; and this is before we consider our expected future scaling! For those starting new, or smaller projects, SPM seems to provide a nice user experience. However, it also deserves to be regarded as a "first-party CocoaPods". It serves a very similar use-case, and may lead to similar performance drawbacks. Bazel was a different matter. It is undoubtedly a powerful tool, but is a high-investment choice; compared to both SPM and Tuist it diverges much from the traditional iOS development experience, increasing disruption for developers. Also, since Bazel experience is still quite uncommon, this adds extra onboarding load for new team members. We also need to support and maintain infrastructure internally; we have small infrastructure teams and Bazel presents concerns about poor bus factor for a tool that is a single point of failure. During our proof of concept it became clear that in spite of its power, Bazel would be costly for us in the short term. In comparison, Tuist hit a sweet spot between the ## Scaling iOS at Bumble: Part 2/3 -- The Assessment DevFeed: [Scaling iOS at Bumble: Part 2/3 -- The Assessment]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: Jonathan Crooke Published: 2024-02-15T13:49:17Z Content type: article Language: en Sources: [Bumble Tech]() Topics: [iOS](), [Tuist](), [swift-package-manager](), [bazel](), [toolchain](), [Xcode](), [Requirements](), [Testing]() Tags: [bazel](), [ios](), [ios-app-development](), [performance](), [requirements](), [swift](), [swift-package-manager](), [testing](), [toolchain](), [tuist](), [xcode]() ### AI overview This article recaps Bumble's assessment process for replacing parts of its iOS project and build toolchain. It describes onboarding, proof-of-concept work, full-app conversion, and assessment criteria for Swift Package Manager, Tuist, and Bazel, including blockers, user experience, and performance. ### Source excerpt Scaling iOS at Bumble: Part 2/3 -- The AssessmentRecap In our previous post we discussed how we came to be investigating project and build toolchain replacement solutions for our iOS codebase at Bumble Inc. We began executing proofs of concept for Swift Package Manager (SPM), Tuist and Bazel. The Process Our investigative process for each tool was performed in roughly the same manner: 1. Onboarding With the exception of some light use of SPM as a third-party dependency manager, no-one on the team was fully fluent with any of the tools. This meant that at first, we needed to learn the basics, which could be achieved by creating a minimum-viable manifest for one of our node modules. This would involve learning the manifest format and core commands for building, testing etc. 2. Medium-sized proof of concept Following on from the initial onboarding, we would then progress to converting parent modules, traversing the tree post-order. At each level we'd cover more of our core requirements and encounter edge-cases. Throughout, we noted learnings, limitations and fixes. 3. Full-app conversion At this stage, since our module tree exhibits a strong level of uniformity, we'd now have gathered enough experience to fully convert the app's child modules, and do so using automated tooling. How we achieved this will be discussed below. Unsurprisingly, the top-level app target was its own challenge, and required considerably handcrafting. We only aimed to achieve a minimum-viable conversion at this stage, and didn't expect tests to pass. That said, we'd usually have a fairly conformant conversion anyway, that would launch successfully to its home screen and usually plenty more. 4. Assessment With a converted app target in hand, we would now have a candidate for assessment. But what did we want to know? Our analysis looked at these areas: Blockers: simple enough, any limitations or issues in the tool's functionality whereby it was unable to serve our basic requirements Subjective user ## The Magic of Generating an Xcode Project DevFeed: [The Magic of Generating an Xcode Project]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Published: 2020-02-20T00:00:00Z Content type: article Language: en Sources: [SoundCloud Backstage Blog]() Topics: [Tuist](), [build times]() Tags: [apple](), [build-times](), [generation](), [git](), [ios](), [mobile](), [tooling](), [tuist](), [xcode](), [xcodegen]() ### AI overview The article explains how SoundCloud used Tuist to generate its complex iOS Xcode project, replacing a large, difficult-to-maintain project definition with more concise rules. It describes improved consistency and fewer project-file maintenance problems, with lower build times as an unexpected outcome. ### Source excerpt Planet Earth vs. Jupiter. There is the same order of magnitude between the ratio of these two planets and the amount of code that defined...