4 ms·
"A team of full stack devs tend towards whatever they fancy when handing out JIRAs, and the separation is still usually front or back-end. It becomes an unoffic
by Illniyar 8y ago
"A team of full stack devs tend towards whatever they fancy when handing out JIRAs, and the separation is still usually front or back-end. It becomes an unofficial silo anyway. The full stack advantage is for sudden departures: the project doesn't completely stop because people can fill in with mediocre code. A disadvantage is that you don't have specialists and risk more technical debt that can't be enforced by linters/testing."
The idea of fullstack isn't that you have no preference at all between backend or frontend, but that you can do both. Much like a backend developer could specialize in certain areas, so can a full-stack one.
"he key evidence to me that full stack is mostly BS is that it only crops up in web roles. Outside of web dev, people are still silo'd -- security people and systems developers aren't pulled off-task to go work on the company website. We're completely fine accepting their responsibilities in terms of the product. If you're a front or back-end web dev though, there's this constant pressure of "why haven't you learned to full stack yet?"
The term is defined by web technologies. In other areas we have different names - devops is a similar merging of separate roles (At least in some interpretations of the loaded term).
I've been in orgs where the job of the DBA was left for developers. In many IOT companies the hardware guys also do low level software. Game development in smaller shops tend to mix tons of roles into a single person.
Just because we don't have a name for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
- Novashi 8y ago>The idea of fullstack isn't that you have no preference at all between backend or frontend, but that you can do both. Either front/back specialist can google things these days and "do" both sides. If the only goalpost is simply "doing" front or back end, then that just backs my argument that fullstack is kinda BS. The impression I've always been given is that fullstack was good at both, not simply "able to write something that works" in both. This qualification is important because... >Just because we don't have a name for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ... the name for it has always been "doing extra work without getting appropriate compensation".
- iends 8y agoWhat does "good at both" even mean? Where I come from it's "good enough given our time and resource constraints" and generally that's a business decision and not a technical one.
- ryanbrunner 8y agoI think it might mean things to different companies, but in most places I've worked, there's definitely a feeling that either front-end or back-end developers should try to limit how much they modify "the other sides" code. It isn't just a question of capability, if your organization is set up with front-end and back-end developers Conway's law is going to result in a fairly separate front end and back end world that is worked on almost exclusively by the "right" kind of developer - similarly to how most developers will stop designing anything as soon as someone with "Design" in their title joins the company.
- pseudalopex 8y agoConway's law says that your design will reflect your communications structure. Front and back end teams will produce front and back end systems. B2B and B2C teams will produce B2B and B2C systems. People have different skills and interests, so even a 100% "full stack" team tends to develop unofficial silos unless management prevents it.