{"id":1416,"date":"2026-08-05T21:28:26","date_gmt":"2026-08-05T21:28:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.projectimmerse.com\/blog\/?p=1416"},"modified":"2026-08-05T21:36:22","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T21:36:22","slug":"why-some-react-next-js-projects-use-in-imports-and-some-dont","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.projectimmerse.com\/blog\/why-some-react-next-js-projects-use-in-imports-and-some-dont\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Some React & Next.js Projects Use “@” in Imports (And Some Don’t)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Illustration<\/a>
Visual comparing React and Next.js @<\/code> path aliases with traditional relative imports, illustrating why many developers prefer cleaner import paths.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

If you’ve spent any time jumping between React or Next.js codebases, you’ve probably noticed something weird: some projects have imports like this \u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n

js<\/p>\n\n\n

\nimport Button from '@\/components\/Button';\n<\/pre><\/div>\n\n\n
\u2014 and others look like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
js<\/p>\n\n\n
\nimport Button from '..\/..\/..\/components\/Button';\n<\/pre><\/div>\n\n\n
Same framework. Same language. Wildly different vibes. So what gives? Is the @<\/code> some secret JavaScript operator nobody told you about? A cry for help from a developer three folders too deep?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not quite. Let’s clear it up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The Short Answer<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The @<\/code> symbol isn’t a JavaScript feature, a React feature, or even magic. It’s a path alias<\/strong> \u2014 a shortcut that a project chooses<\/em> to set up (or doesn’t). Whether you see it in a codebase comes down to configuration, not framework version, and definitely not vibes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What “@” Actually Does<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"Infographic
Infographic showing how React and Next.js path aliases (@<\/code>) simplify imports, improve readability, and make projects easier to maintain compared to long relative import paths.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Instead of writing out a relative path and counting dots like you’re defusing a bomb:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
js<\/p>\n\n\n
\nimport Button from '..\/..\/..\/components\/Button';\n<\/pre><\/div>\n\n\n
You get a clean, absolute-style import:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
js<\/p>\n\n\n
\nimport Button from '@\/components\/Button';\n<\/pre><\/div>\n\n\n
@<\/code> almost always points to your project root or src\/<\/code> folder. It’s a find-and-replace trick your bundler and TypeScript compiler understand \u2014 nothing more, nothing less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why Some Projects Have It and Others Don’t<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1. It depends on setup choices, not Next.js version<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
When you scaffold a new app with create-next-app<\/code>, it actually asks you:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
“Would you like to customize the default import alias (@\/<\/em>)?”*<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Say yes (or just hit enter on the default), and boom \u2014 you’ve got @\/<\/code> support out of the box. Older projects, or ones someone put together by hand years ago, never got asked that question, so they never got the alias either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. Someone has to flip the switch manually<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The alias lives in tsconfig.json<\/code> (for TypeScript projects) or jsconfig.json<\/code> (for JavaScript ones), under paths<\/code>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
json<\/p>\n\n\n
\n{\n  "compilerOptions": {\n    "paths": {\n      "@\/*": [".\/src\/*"]\n    }\n  }\n}\n<\/pre><\/div>\n\n\n
No paths<\/code> config, no @<\/code> support. Simple as that. If you try to use @\/<\/code> in a project without this setup, your imports will fail \u2014 and you’ll spend twenty confused minutes Googling before realizing nobody configured it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. Developer preference plays a bigger role than you’d think<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Not everyone loves the @<\/code> alias, and that’s a legitimate stance, not a personality flaw. Some developers stick with relative imports because:<\/p>\n\n\n\n