3 ms·

I think your approach would work for a larger company than the article was about. Edit: > "generalist" route with modern frontend and backend is nearly imposs

I think your approach would work for a larger company than the article was about. Edit: > "generalist" route with modern frontend and backend is nearly impossible today This is simply not true; it all depends on design and organizational priorities. An organization can choose to use the same language in the UI and server, and prioritize the compromises that come with same language development. (IE, C# + Blazor, or Typescript + NodeJS.)

ivan_gammel 1y ago
11 engineers is a big enough company to split the team. In some cases it may work, however building great UX in browser is not the same job as performance optimizations or security of a server application even on the same stack. Generalist can build a CRUD app, sure, flex layout and ORM are not rocket science. Going beyond that is like finding a unicorn. Such people do exist, but they are rarely found in an average company. C# or Java UIs are a different story, of course, but I’m not sure they should be called “frontend”.
- gwbas1c 1y ago
  Wow that is really insulting. I don't consider myself unicorn, and I do full stack, including UI work in C#. Go update your assumptions.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    “Full stack” means doing both FE and BE in context where distinction between FE and BE is meaningful, and frontend is usually reserved for browser engine targets. Is UI work on C# so different, that it requires introduction of frontend dev role? If not, you are not “full stack” developer just because you do UI on C#. It’s the type of work that is not different from what people did in 1990s, when neither BE, nor FE or “full stack” terms didn’t exist, and everyone was simply an application developer.
    - gwbas1c 1y ago
      UI development in C# can vary considerably depending on what platform and patterns you're targeting. You can do a native Windows UI, mobile, web, ect. > Is UI work on C# so different, that it requires introduction of frontend dev role? First, where Xaml is the most up-to-date native Windows UI API, and primarily C#, it's not "different," it's normal. But, to answer your question: That depends on the kind of application you're making, organizational priorities, and the need for slickness. For example, if you're making a quick and dirty CRUD web app, it doesn't make sense to have a separate UI role. Razor or Blazor (the two ways to do HTML in C#.) will be plenty. This will basically be like what was done in the 1990s. It's extremely easy for a competent C# programmer to learn Blazor (and HTML) and make a functional web application. (As long as you don't care about if it's pretty.) If you're making a pretty web app, the need for a separate role again relies on organizational priorities. In my case, my job is C# in the browser (through Blazor compiled to WASM) all the way to the database. (The definition of "full stack.") I established the patterns we use in in-browser C#, and the components, but I hand off day-to-day UI work to a developer with less experience than me. Getting back to organizational priorities: We could have a dedicated "UI" role if we wanted significantly more polish in our UI. For our company, the fact that our current team can generally handle any area of the stack is far more valuable than someone who can make a pixel perfect UI but get confused in the database. Likewise, we aren't going to agonize over our UI like some organizations do. If an organization is going to do that, they probably need a dedicated UI developer role. > If not, you are not “full stack” developer just because you do UI on C#. Wow that is an insulting statement.
      - ivan_gammel 1y ago
        > Wow that is an insulting statement. So you do target browser and then you are a full stack developer. Do you feel yourself an expert in modern browser technologies, keep yourself updated on latest developments in JS, CSS etc and at the same time can do a hardcore backend work? If yes, congratulations, you are rare as unicorn. No jokes, it’s not easy to find such engineer.
        gwbas1c 1y ago

ivan_gammel 1y ago

11 engineers is a big enough company to split the team. In some cases it may work, however building great UX in browser is not the same job as performance optimizations or security of a server application even on the same stack. Generalist can build a CRUD app, sure, flex layout and ORM are not rocket science. Going beyond that is like finding a unicorn. Such people do exist, but they are rarely found in an average company. C# or Java UIs are a different story, of course, but I’m not sure they should be called “frontend”.

gwbas1c 1y ago
Wow that is really insulting. I don't consider myself unicorn, and I do full stack, including UI work in C#. Go update your assumptions.
- ivan_gammel 1y ago
  “Full stack” means doing both FE and BE in context where distinction between FE and BE is meaningful, and frontend is usually reserved for browser engine targets. Is UI work on C# so different, that it requires introduction of frontend dev role? If not, you are not “full stack” developer just because you do UI on C#. It’s the type of work that is not different from what people did in 1990s, when neither BE, nor FE or “full stack” terms didn’t exist, and everyone was simply an application developer.
  - gwbas1c 1y ago
    UI development in C# can vary considerably depending on what platform and patterns you're targeting. You can do a native Windows UI, mobile, web, ect. > Is UI work on C# so different, that it requires introduction of frontend dev role? First, where Xaml is the most up-to-date native Windows UI API, and primarily C#, it's not "different," it's normal. But, to answer your question: That depends on the kind of application you're making, organizational priorities, and the need for slickness. For example, if you're making a quick and dirty CRUD web app, it doesn't make sense to have a separate UI role. Razor or Blazor (the two ways to do HTML in C#.) will be plenty. This will basically be like what was done in the 1990s. It's extremely easy for a competent C# programmer to learn Blazor (and HTML) and make a functional web application. (As long as you don't care about if it's pretty.) If you're making a pretty web app, the need for a separate role again relies on organizational priorities. In my case, my job is C# in the browser (through Blazor compiled to WASM) all the way to the database. (The definition of "full stack.") I established the patterns we use in in-browser C#, and the components, but I hand off day-to-day UI work to a developer with less experience than me. Getting back to organizational priorities: We could have a dedicated "UI" role if we wanted significantly more polish in our UI. For our company, the fact that our current team can generally handle any area of the stack is far more valuable than someone who can make a pixel perfect UI but get confused in the database. Likewise, we aren't going to agonize over our UI like some organizations do. If an organization is going to do that, they probably need a dedicated UI developer role. > If not, you are not “full stack” developer just because you do UI on C#. Wow that is an insulting statement.
    - ivan_gammel 1y ago
      > Wow that is an insulting statement. So you do target browser and then you are a full stack developer. Do you feel yourself an expert in modern browser technologies, keep yourself updated on latest developments in JS, CSS etc and at the same time can do a hardcore backend work? If yes, congratulations, you are rare as unicorn. No jokes, it’s not easy to find such engineer.
      - gwbas1c 1y ago