[soreal]

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of 'stack' in "full-stack".

The 'stack' in full-stack refers to a solution stack. You can read about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_stack

The terminology full-stack is meaningful to discern between an expert at one part of the stack and someone who knows how to set up and manage all parts of the stack. For example, consider the LAMP stack:

Linux Apache MySql PHP

A Full-Stack developer is someone who knows enough Linux to set up an Apache server and MySql database, enough MySql to create a database, enough PHP to render a decent web page.

On the other hand, a frontend developer knows the gritty details about how to render a beautiful and performant webpage that works on IE6, iPhones on 2G and your 4k monitor.

[qwertyuiop924]

I said if you say "full-stack" and don't qualify it, thus implying that you're a full-stack everything.

[ludston]

In order to feel smart, deliberately misinterpret what someone says.

This is easy if there are multiple possible interpretations. Just pick the one that makes the least sense.

That way, instead of having to address their statement you can just pick on their communication skills.

[qwertyuiop924]

Erm. No. I just misread the post.

Oh well. Sorry.

[novembermike]

Only if the listener is an idiot.

[qwertyuiop924]

Cute. Short, witty, and to the point, with humourous undertones, but maintaining the barbs of the insult, as the implications rapidly become clear.

However, such a quick, "fuck that guy, amirite?" type insult is so common that it's become boring, especially amongst programmers, who have gotten a lot of practice insulting each other over the internet in the past however-many decades: our culture has adjusted accordingly, and the bar has been raised on effective insults. You can tell what is an ineffective insult, because the recipient will immediately turn around and mock you. You know, like I'm doing now.

Overall, I rank this insult a pitiful 3/10.

[gridspy]

However the GP isn't trying to insult you. The GP is stating that most (non-idiot) people would interpret "full stack" to mean "all the software stuff"

This is simply a direct counter to your argument that "every non-idiot thinks full stack means everything since the stone age"

I appreciate your apology above.

[qwertyuiop924]

Yeah. It wasn't quite that. I was exaggerating for comedic affect. But if you say "full-stack" and don't follow it with "web," there's an obvious connotation. So I took it.

Also, "all the software stuff" still means down to assembler. So that'll be fun.

Yes, I know that's not what you meant, but why stop the fun now, just because I couldn't keep my terminology straight?

[gridspy]

I think the other distinction there is that a "full stack developer" might have a comfortable understanding of how all these things work in quite a bit of detail.

The understanding does not mean that they want to take the time investment of recreating all that work from scratch.

For instance,

I understand branch prediction, cache lines and inter-processor synchronization. But I'm no kernel developer.

I know what the assembler does, and its goals. But I haven't made one, and any I made would be sub-optimal

.. This proceeds through compilers, operating systems and up to the web stack.

I mean, writing a renderer that fully implements "HTML 5" along with ALL relevant standards - that's a massive software effort. I barely understand it, but I understand enough to get the job done.

[novembermike]

What do you mean exaggerating for comedic affect? What kind of horrible person would do that?