Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Are 'Full Stack' Developers a Thing?
"It seems that nearly every job posting for a software developer these days requires someone who can do it all," complains Slashdot reader datavirtue, noting a main focus on finding someone to do "front end work and back end work and database work and message queue work...."
I have been in a relatively small shop that for years that has always had a few guys focused on the UI. The rest of us might have to do something on the front-end but are mostly engaged in more complex "back-end" development or MQ and database architecture. I have been keeping my eye on the market, and the laser focus on full stack developers is a real turn-off.
When was the last time you had an outage because the UI didn't work right? I can't count the number of outages resulting from inexperienced developers introducing a bug in the business logic or middle tier. Am I correct in assuming that the shops that are always looking for full stack developers just aren't grown up yet?
sjames (Slashdot reader #1,099) responded that "They are a thing, but in order to have comprehensive experience in everything involved, the developer will almost certainly be older than HR departments in 'the valley' like to hire."
And Dave Ostrander argues that "In the last 10 years front end software development has gotten really complex. Gulp, Grunt, Sass, 35+ different mobile device screen sizes and 15 major browsers to code for, has made the front end skillset very valuable." The original submitter argues that front-end development "is a much simpler domain," leading to its own discussion.
Share your own thoughts in the comments. Are "full-stack" developers a thing?
When was the last time you had an outage because the UI didn't work right? I can't count the number of outages resulting from inexperienced developers introducing a bug in the business logic or middle tier. Am I correct in assuming that the shops that are always looking for full stack developers just aren't grown up yet?
sjames (Slashdot reader #1,099) responded that "They are a thing, but in order to have comprehensive experience in everything involved, the developer will almost certainly be older than HR departments in 'the valley' like to hire."
And Dave Ostrander argues that "In the last 10 years front end software development has gotten really complex. Gulp, Grunt, Sass, 35+ different mobile device screen sizes and 15 major browsers to code for, has made the front end skillset very valuable." The original submitter argues that front-end development "is a much simpler domain," leading to its own discussion.
Share your own thoughts in the comments. Are "full-stack" developers a thing?
A "unicorn" is mostly just someone who's been around for more than a few years and kept learning in a broad range of areas. There are plenty out there.
Some employers have trouble with wanting unicorns but only having the budget for newbies, but that's an entirely different problem.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Well, you are approaching this from a different angle.
There are many companies with 25-500 employees who need programming, but don't want to pay for an entire team.
Think of a gazillion specialty companies who are small to mid sized, but need custom software. Not every company can run off the shelf type stuff because their business model can't adapt to what is currently available.
So they hire 1-2 programmers and have them do the whole thing. Customer management down to the website.
These aren't bad jobs. And the organizations care more about your longevity than the typical tech shop. These companies don't want to hire someone new...huge hassle.
These are not bad jobs. And they aren't being offshored. You're part of the team and effect how the business is run. You're there to help and guide because you know what's going on.
It's using your skills in a different way.
No reason to lie.
I'd rather base it on EQ.
I've seen high IQ people make bad decisions for really stupid reasons.
Nothing wrong with high IQ- it's great. But I deal with mature code. I'd rather have people with wisdom than just intelligence.
EQ is a made-up thing that doesn't measure anything, because anyone with a slightly above-average IQ can game the test to tell the tester what they think the tester wants to know.
You can't game the IQ test to get an IQ higher than you really have. You can game the EQ tests to say just about anything.
EQ is part of the "new science" where there are no facts only opinions, and everyone gets a participation trophy. IQ is part of the old science where things remain true or false regardless of the faith behind it.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.