Stop Overthinking Your Component Folder Structure

October 16, 2025

We need to talk about component organization. Specifically, about the elaborate folder hierarchies that have somehow become standard practice in modern UI development.

You know what I'm talking about: atoms, molecules, organisms, particles, primitives, base, shared, common. The Atomic Design pattern and its many variations that promise elegant organization but deliver confusion instead.

Here's my controversial take: just use flat folders named exactly after your components.

The Problem with Abstract Categorization

When you organize components into abstract categories like "atoms" and "molecules," you're making every developer on your team answer philosophical questions before they can write code:

Is a Button an atom or a molecule?
We use Icon inside Button, so does that make Button a molecule now?
Wait, our SearchBar has a button, an input, AND an icon. Is that an organism?
Should Dropdown go in atoms or molecules? It's technically composite but feels atomic...

These aren't engineering decisions. They're bikeshedding disguised as architecture.

The Case for Alphabetical Simplicity

Instead of this:

components/
├── atoms/
│   ├── Button/
│   ├── Icon/
│   ├── Input/
│   └── Label/
├── molecules/
│   ├── SearchBar/
│   ├── FormField/
│   └── NavItem/
└── organisms/
    ├── Header/
    ├── Sidebar/
    └── UserProfile/

Do this:

components/
├── Button/
├── FormField/
├── Header/
├── Icon/
├── Input/
├── Label/
├── NavItem/
├── SearchBar/
├── Sidebar/
└── UserProfile/

Yes, you'll end up with a long list. That's actually good.

Why This Works Better

1. The `node_modules` Principle

Think about `node_modules` for a second. It's one of the largest, most chaotic folders in any project. It can contain hundreds or thousands of packages. And yet, you never have trouble finding what you need.

Why? Because packages are named exactly what they are and sorted alphabetically.

Need lodash? Look for "L." Need react-router-dom? Look for "R." You don't need to navigate through node_modules/utilities/data-manipulation/lodash or node_modules/frameworks/view-layer/react/routing/react-router-dom.

The same principle applies to your components. If it works for managing thousands of npm packages, it can work for your hundred or so components.

2. Zero Cognitive Overhead

When a new developer joins your team, they can find components instantly. Need the `SearchBar`? Look for "S." No onboarding required. No documentation to read. No debates about taxonomy.

Your IDE's file search works perfectly with this structure. Type "Sea" and you get SearchBar. You don't need to remember that someone three years ago decided it was a molecule.

3. Alphabetical Order is Universal

Everyone understands alphabetical order. It works in every language, every culture, every IDE.

"Atoms vs. molecules" is not universal. It requires shared context, team agreement, and constant maintenance as components evolve.

4. No Arbitrary Boundaries

Components change. What starts as a simple button might gain dropdown functionality. What was once composite might become simplified. With abstract categories, each change triggers a reorganization debate and a painful file move that breaks imports across the codebase.

With flat structure, components evolve freely. The folder name stays the same because it's just the component name.

5. Faster Imports

// Abstract hierarchy
import { Button } from '@/components/atoms/Button';
import { SearchBar } from '@/components/molecules/SearchBar';
import { Header } from '@/components/organisms/Header';

// Flat structure
import { Button } from '@/components/Button';
import { SearchBar } from '@/components/SearchBar';
import { Header } from '@/components/Header';

Consistent, predictable, and you never need to remember which category something belongs to.

6. Better Git Diffs

When components are organized alphabetically in a flat structure, git diffs and pull requests are clearer. You're not constantly moving things between `atoms`, `molecules`, and `organisms` folders as components evolve.

But What About Organization?

"But won't it get messy with 100+ components in one folder?"

First, if you have 100+ components, you probably have bigger problems than folder structure. Consider whether you're building too many one-off components instead of making existing ones more flexible.

Second, your IDE already handles this. File explorers have search. Command palettes exist. Ctrl+P or Cmd+P is your friend.

Third, if you really need grouping, use naming prefixes:

components/
├── FormButton/
├── FormField/
├── FormInput/
├── FormLabel/
├── ModalDialog/
├── ModalHeader/
└── ModalFooter/

This preserves alphabetical sorting while providing visual grouping. The component name itself carries the context.

When Complexity is Warranted

I'm not saying there's never a reason to nest folders. Here are valid exceptions:

Framework requirements: Some frameworks expect specific structures
Feature-based organisation: Grouping by feature domain (e.g., checkout/, dashboard/) makes sense when components are truly feature-specific
True shared libraries: If you're building a component library distributed as a package, some categorization might be warranted for documentation purposes

But for internal application components? Keep it flat.

The Real Cost of Overthinking

Every minute your team spends debating whether something is an atom or a molecule is a minute not spent building features. Every time a new developer has to study your custom taxonomy is time wasted.

Premature abstraction in folder structure is still premature abstraction.

Conclusion

Your folder structure should be a tool, not a puzzle. It should help developers find code faster, not force them to decipher an organisational philosophy.

Stop using atoms, molecules, and organisms. Stop inventing new abstract categories. Just put your components in alphabetically sorted folders named exactly what the component is called.

Your future self—and every new developer on your team—will thank you.