← Back to context

Comment by ahartmetz

4 hours ago

I 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.

The term "full stack" has a widely well understood meaning, you're being pedantic

  • The 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.

    • Or, 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.

  • It doesn't for me and I don't think that my subculture of computing uses similarly myopic terms.

    • >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.

I 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.