4 ms·

Only if the listener is an idiot.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        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 10y ago
        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 10y ago
        >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 10y ago
        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 10y ago
      What do you mean exaggerating for comedic affect? What kind of horrible person would do that?

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        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 10y ago
        >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 10y ago
        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 10y ago
    What do you mean exaggerating for comedic affect? What kind of horrible person would do that?