Comment by vsareto
5 years ago
>I don't know why full stack webdevs are paid so poorly. No really, they should be paid like half a mil a year just base salary. Fuck they have to understand both front end AND back end AND how different browsers work AND networking AND databases AND caching AND differences between web and mobile AND omg what the fuck there's another framework out there that companies want to use? Seriously, why are webdevs paid so little.
Full stack compresses two jobs into one. It's purely for cost-savings. They're paid so little because companies revert to "well, you can still only do 8 hours, so you do half as much of each", but really that's just them trying to weasel out of paying for knowledge. They also blur the lines by putting full stack along-side other devs, even though the other devs may not have invested the same time to gain as much knowledge as full stack.
When you take a full stack job, you undervalue your knowledge (and the time invested) and are selling it for roughly half of what it's worth.
I've been a "full-stack" developer at large tech companies, and my experience is there at least it means "frontend developer who can put together a basic API server". My fellow full-stack developers and I would spend most of our time building out frontends, which was generally regarded by others as challenging and specialized work, and maybe 20% of the time adding API endpoints to fetch or update some data, which was considered straightforward.[0]
Not having to wait for some other engineer to make the backends made us a lot more efficient. It definitely was rewarding to be able to complete products end-to-end.
Hiring standards and pay were the same as for any engineer, at least in FAANG.
[0] Yeah, occasionally we had to optimize some SQL queries or whatever but we're competent engineers, we can figure it out even if it's not what we do every day.
> my experience [full-stack] means "frontend developer who can put together a basic API server"
This is 100% accurate in my experience too, and it's also true in the other way around: "full-stack" means backend developer who can put a basic SPA using React/Vue.
From the frontend perspective: they call themselves full-stacks for knowing how to spin up a NodeJS HTTP Server powered by Express with MongoDB inserting JSON in the database. But they are missing:
- AWS/cloud computing: not necessarily creating the infrastructure (although that's a must on more senior levels), but how to orchestrate the different components together.
- databases: why SQL/NoSQL, beyond basic SELECTs, knowing how to properly add indexes, debug why queries are slow, modeling, understanding locks implications and transaction levels, and so on.
- tooling: how to set up a bundler, linter and formatter, testing, CI/CD. This overlaps a bit with the responsibilities of the DevOps engineer, but a full-stack should know at least on intermediate level all of those things. I can't say how many times I've seen "senior full-stacks" that had no clue about how webpack worked at all.
From the backend perspective: they call themselves full-stacks for knowing how to spin up a React/Vue app that does basic CRUD operations using forms, powered by a UI framework like Material UI. But they are missing:
- CSS: most will find CSS hard/annoying and won't bother understanding at all how it works even on a fundamental level, will defer to hacks most of the time to make things work, especially when it comes to adjusting for edge cases like responsive design or cross-browser support.
- the DOM: normally they don't understand it at all, or to a very limited extent.
- Web vitals: how to measure and makes things faster and performant—not really including here overly optimized, but just making sure your app is 60fps or close to that most of the time. Usually when things get slow either on the network side or in the app itself, those engineers will blame is the framework/library, not their misusage of it.
--
Those lists are definitely non-exhaustive, as I didn't even mention more advanced stuff like protocols (how HTTP works? most can't answer), caching, etc etc, but you can get the point I'm trying to make:
The problem with the term full-stack is that only very few engineers really are sufficiently great on both sides of the stack and could say that they mastered both, simply because there's just too much to learn! Frontend has become so much more complex with SPAs compared when it was about rendering static HTML with some CSS and basic behavior with jQuery. Same for backend with the advent of cloud computing and several types of databases.
I've been coding professionally for a decade and I've met only a single engineer that I'd consider him full-stack (he checked all those boxes I mentioned and more). I think I would also include myself, because I spent 50% of my career spent as a front-end engineer, became senior, then I transitioned to back-end engineering because it pays the same or more and it's less stressful (for most of the regular companies that most of us work at). My current title is "principal full stack engineer", but in practice I only do backend/devops, I don't actively code front-end but I keep up with the industry by following the new trends and testing things here and there in personal projects.
Ultimately, I believe for being a full-stack engineer you have to be first a front-end (or back-end engineer) then learn the other, what we have today is most people doing the same from the very beginning of their careers and they either go deep on a single one or in none of them.
Full stack is not really a skill level qualifier - that's what junior, senior, principal, staff, etc. are for. It means you work in different areas and can't say "oh I don't do that work here" when someone gives you work in those areas. People call themselves front or back end engineers long before they've mastered it, and you don't have to wait for full stack either.
The front or backend bias you and your parent's comment talk about are team specific things so you don't give a hard front-end task to someone who is biased towards the backend. That still means they can take the less difficult tickets.
You can replace full stack for your example with "extremely good/talented/gifted engineer" and I'm almost sure it has nothing to do with the full stack label because it's the only example in a decade you've found.
But also the jobs that they get feed back into what they call themselves. So even if that's your example, it isn't how the business defines it, which IMO is ultimately why it's just a cost savings label to get people to work harder for similar amounts of pay as front or backend people.
There's also an issue with how many full stack web developers who are actually capable of doing all the things he lists.
My experience is that at some scale it works out okay, but beyond a certain point it just falls flat for most. We deal with insanely talented developers, who will trash a database, because it don't understand how it works. Talented JavaScript developers, who don't really understand how HTTP works... or load balancers, or caching... or webservers. Sometimes you get these fantastic software machines as deliverables, complex, you can't monitor them, or configure much, and the it just implements a basic feature of HA-Proxy or Apache, but badly.
My point is that they should be paid poorly, because they fail to be excellent at every part of their job, but rather than: Yes, this should in most cases not even be a job title. If you find someone who can do all of this well, you almost can't overpay, but are you really sure that you want to tie everything up on one person anyway?
It is not 2 jobs in 1.
Full-stack developer knows some frontend, some backend, some sql. They are paid good money because they are convenient, not for their knowledge. A dev who does only one thing knows way more about it that a team of full-stack devs.
Full-stack devs earn a lot and will probably earn only more in the future.
This is mostly a result of tech advancements like cloud infrastructure, tools etc that takes all the hardest things from you - like managing a DB, implementing security, managing infrastructure, deployments etc.
You don't need deep experts because of it, generalists are perfect for quickly shipping new features.
I would do "full-stack" over a decade ago, when there was less of the notion of "front-end engineer" (which still sound a bit ridiculous to me) - the front-end was mostly HTML and CSS. It was a good experience, to go from requirements gathering to the database schema and back to presentation - it helped me see the whole picture.
Why is everyone saying they’re underpaid?
You can make doctor level salary at the ceiling if you move to a FAANG as a full stack dev.
The fact that boot camps even exist shows that it’s not that difficult of a job.
Other industries boot camps don’t even exist.
there is plenty of other software engineering work that is way more complicated than full stack web dev, and there are a lot of web devs.
What common position pays better than full stack?