5 ms·

Yes, precisely because I've been involved in maintaining codebases built without real full stack frameworks is why I say what I said. The problem we have in th

by midrus 5y ago

Yes, precisely because I've been involved in maintaining codebases built without real full stack frameworks is why I say what I said. The problem we have in this industry, is that somebody reads these blog posts, and the next day at work they ditch the "legacy rails" and starts rewriting the monolith in sveltekit/nextjs/whatever because that's what he/she has been told is the modern way to do full stack. No need to say those engineers will quit 1 year later after they realize the mess they've created with their lightweight and simple modern framework. I've seen this too many times already. It is not about gatekeeping. It is about engineers being humble and assume it is very likely that their code is very unlikely to be better tested, documented, cohesive and maintained than what you're given in the real full stack frameworks. Of course you can build anything even in assembler if you want. The question is if that's the most useful thing to do with your company's money.

andrew_ 5y ago
This word play isn't worth the time or effort. Shall we try to apply the meaning of full stack based on my own entry into web development in 1998 when N-Tier development was all the rage? I think not.
slibhb 5y ago
You're arguing about configuration vs convention. You can prefer batteries-included frameworks (convention). Other people can prefer a barebones approach (configuration). Either way, it's full stack if you can write code that runs on the server and code that runs on the client.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- newlisp 5y ago
  Either way, it's full stack if you can write code that runs on the server and code that runs on the client. I wouldn't call it full stack without a database.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    Clearly, we're not gonna reach any conclusion in this debate of what it means. So what's more fun than stop arguing over definitions? Polls, of course! Here is one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29811603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29811603 Once completed, we have our answer :)
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    While I all generally think of a database being a part of full-stack, I'm not so sure that it makes sense to be a prerequisite. A database is just a tool for storing data. If all you need is in-memory data, flat file, or even no long-term data at all, I see no reason the requirement of long-lasting data to be a requirement for full-stack. That being said, the more I keep thinking about it, the less useful the term full-stack even feels. Why is front-end + back-end + database (+ other?) the full-stack? Why not also require third-party integrations? What about the hardware? Should the definition of full-stack expand as the options do, or should it stay static at whatever it's original usage was?
    - mgkimsal 5y ago
      "Why not also require third-party integrations" - it almost has to include that anyway, but.. the skill set required to understand and work with third-party integrations is almost certainly going to be a subset of 'front-end' or 'back-end' anyway. Mastery of client side and mastery of server side are distinct enough that those sort of 'what abouts' you raised seem to fall under the broad 'front/back' domains already, no? There's enough virtualization that 'hardware' itself is a somewhat elastic term. However, I've had to deal with 4 different devs in the last few months, all trying to get set up with one of two projects. Both are docker-based. But... "well, I'm on windows... I'm on WSL... I'm on Mac, but M1... I'm on Mac, but Mojave, and this doesn't work..., oh, I can't have 2 things running on the same port?" Unless every single person is on the exact same hardware/OS combinations, having some understanding of 'hardware and OS diffs' and how they may impact you may still be necessary.
- midrus 5y ago
  Convention is what you have in rails. Configuration is what you have in Django. What you have when you need to take 1k decisions per second and tie things together to kind of reproduce something usable as a whole is something totally different.
nesarkvechnep 5y ago
I’m 100% with you on this. I’ve worked with many people who thought they’re full-stack developers just because they use these “full-stack” frameworks. Some of the guys didn’t know what a foreign key is but wanted to use reactive programming. Some of them didn’t know what’s a REST API but bashed the pattern and praised GraphQL. You get what I mean.

by midrus 5y ago

andrew_ 5y ago

This word play isn't worth the time or effort. Shall we try to apply the meaning of full stack based on my own entry into web development in 1998 when N-Tier development was all the rage? I think not.

slibhb 5y ago

You're arguing about configuration vs convention. You can prefer batteries-included frameworks (convention). Other people can prefer a barebones approach (configuration). Either way, it's full stack if you can write code that runs on the server and code that runs on the client.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
newlisp 5y ago
Either way, it's full stack if you can write code that runs on the server and code that runs on the client. I wouldn't call it full stack without a database.
- capableweb 5y ago
  Clearly, we're not gonna reach any conclusion in this debate of what it means. So what's more fun than stop arguing over definitions? Polls, of course! Here is one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29811603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29811603 Once completed, we have our answer :)
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  While I all generally think of a database being a part of full-stack, I'm not so sure that it makes sense to be a prerequisite. A database is just a tool for storing data. If all you need is in-memory data, flat file, or even no long-term data at all, I see no reason the requirement of long-lasting data to be a requirement for full-stack. That being said, the more I keep thinking about it, the less useful the term full-stack even feels. Why is front-end + back-end + database (+ other?) the full-stack? Why not also require third-party integrations? What about the hardware? Should the definition of full-stack expand as the options do, or should it stay static at whatever it's original usage was?
  - mgkimsal 5y ago
    "Why not also require third-party integrations" - it almost has to include that anyway, but.. the skill set required to understand and work with third-party integrations is almost certainly going to be a subset of 'front-end' or 'back-end' anyway. Mastery of client side and mastery of server side are distinct enough that those sort of 'what abouts' you raised seem to fall under the broad 'front/back' domains already, no? There's enough virtualization that 'hardware' itself is a somewhat elastic term. However, I've had to deal with 4 different devs in the last few months, all trying to get set up with one of two projects. Both are docker-based. But... "well, I'm on windows... I'm on WSL... I'm on Mac, but M1... I'm on Mac, but Mojave, and this doesn't work..., oh, I can't have 2 things running on the same port?" Unless every single person is on the exact same hardware/OS combinations, having some understanding of 'hardware and OS diffs' and how they may impact you may still be necessary.
midrus 5y ago
Convention is what you have in rails. Configuration is what you have in Django. What you have when you need to take 1k decisions per second and tie things together to kind of reproduce something usable as a whole is something totally different.

nesarkvechnep 5y ago

I’m 100% with you on this. I’ve worked with many people who thought they’re full-stack developers just because they use these “full-stack” frameworks. Some of the guys didn’t know what a foreign key is but wanted to use reactive programming. Some of them didn’t know what’s a REST API but bashed the pattern and praised GraphQL. You get what I mean.