[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.

[qwertyuiop924]

That's fair enough. It's kind of like where I am, but I suck more.

But

No matter how much you know, there's always going to be a part of the stack that you can't develop for: you can't know everything.

that was my point.

[mercer]

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, and nobody argued otherwise. I'm a bit baffled as to what you're trying to achieve here...

[qwertyuiop924]

>I'm a bit baffled as to what you're trying to achieve here...

Funnily enough, so am I. So I can't really help you with that.

[mercer]

Fair enough. My reason for inserting myself in this conversation was primarily boredom and/or a desire to have an opinion of some kind heard :-).

[novembermike]

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