4 ms·
You aren't full-stack unless you are writing the Verilog for the chips that run your other code. Seriously though the term full-stack is pointless as everyone
by quantumhobbit 10y ago
You aren't full-stack unless you are writing the Verilog for the chips that run your other code.
Seriously though the term full-stack is pointless as everyone has a different definition of what that means but still wants to say "I am full-stack"
- philipov 10y agoThe size and contents of the stack might change from application to application, but it has a consistent definition as, "Whatever it is we need to hire developers to do, I can do all of it."
- ryandrake 10y agoThe parent poster's point was, if you're going to credibly say you "can do all of it", you need to list expertise in x86 assembly and VHDL on your resume. Otherwise, you're only a "most stack" developer.
- hyperhopper 10y agoNot at all. Most companies will never need to write assembly, or anything at that level, so its not part of the stack. If you want to be that pedantic, do you need to forge the metals you use in your computers since thats part of the stack as well?
- talmand 10y agoI would reply on my new machine but I'm still waiting on my drum of oil so I can process it into plastics for the keyboard.
- pault 10y agoIn the context of web development, I've always thought of full stack as: deep knowledge of front end, more than one back end language/framework, database optimization, networking and linux system administration, and a little bit of graphic design sense. If you can ship a professional-looking and scalable app alone, you can call yourself a full stack web developer. If you're working with embedded systems, obviously the definition changes.
- vonmoltke 10y agoThat's not consistent at all, since what companies need isn't consistent.
- Paul_S 10y agoYou can be contrarian about it but full stack includes assembly.