[KronosNull]

I think that's the point that post and the parent comment are making. A "Real-full-stack" (actually-full-stack) would actually include communication + networking.

I think it's more of a criticism on the term "full-stack" for someone who works on a backend and touches front-end every now and then.

I think everyone is in agreement that what we call "dev0ps" devs and "full-stack" devs have completely different skill sets and mindsets but if I had to attribute "full-stack" to either of these it would be a "dev-ops" dev. (theoretically, real life is messy)

[temac]

That's quite arbitrary and you likely defined it as this to fit your current business or occupation. Or even just your current main competencies.

I could say a real-full-stack should actually include EE, chip design, compiler design, kernel hacking, model checking, machine learning, virtual reality, power supply design, and 20 years of experience in Rust.

Or anything, really.

[viraptor]

I think you're missing the point a little by adding hardware and chucking in the 20 years experience with rust at the end. But, as long as you stay in software land, yes. I'm happy with real-full-stack description for experienced DevOps people who can say - I'm not a master of JS, but this caching strategy needs reorganisation on multiple levels, I can handle that. Or I'm not a master of kernel, but if we have this specific crash repeating, I'm happy to dig into it and create a patch/workaround. Whether you work with machine learning / VR / other environment changes the specific tech, not the idea.