4 ms·
Don't be that guy.
by mstipetic 9mo ago
Don't be that guy.
- ahartmetz 9mo agoI am going to be that guy. I make computers do things, but I never act like my stuff is the only stuff that makes things happen. There is a huge software stack of which my work is just the final pieces.
- mstipetic 9mo agoThe term "full stack" has a widely well understood meaning, you're being pedantic
- ahartmetz 9mo agoIt doesn't for me and I don't think that my subculture of computing uses similarly myopic terms.
- llmslave2 9mo agoWhere did your subculture come from, Pedanticville?
- konart 9mo ago>It doesn't for me And it's okay. It doesn't mean it should be this way for everyone else. It is pretty common (and been so for at least two decades) for web devs to differentiate like so: backend, frontend or both. This "both" part almost always is replaced by "full stack". When people say this they just mean they do both parts of a web app and have no ill will or neglect towards systems programmers or engineers working on a power plant.
- SunlitCat 9mo agoThe problem with calling it “full stack” (even if it has a widely understood meaning) is that it implicitly puts the people doing the actual lower-level work on a pedestal. It creates the impression that if this is already “full stack,” then things like device drivers, operating systems, or foundational libraries must be some kind of arcane magic reserved only for experts, which they aren’t. The term “full stack” works fine within its usual context, but when viewed more broadly, it becomes misleading and, in my opinion, problematic.
- ahartmetz 9mo agoOr, alternatively, it ignores and devalues the existence of these parts. In both cases, it's a weird "othering" of software below a certain line in the, ahem, full stack.
- bheadmaster 9mo agoI agree with you in sentiment - the term "full-stack" is odd and a little too grandiose for its meaning. But it is already established in the industry, and fighting it is unlikely to yield any positive outcomes.