However the GP isn't trying to insult you. The GP is stating that most (non-idiot) people would interpret "full stack" to mean "all the software stuff"
This is simply a direct counter to your argument that "every non-idiot thinks full stack means everything since the stone age"
Yeah. It wasn't quite that. I was exaggerating for comedic affect. But if you say "full-stack" and don't follow it with "web," there's an obvious connotation. So I took it.
Also, "all the software stuff" still means down to assembler. So that'll be fun.
Yes, I know that's not what you meant, but why stop the fun now, just because I couldn't keep my terminology straight?
I think the other distinction there is that a "full stack developer" might have a comfortable understanding of how all these things work in quite a bit of detail.
The understanding does not mean that they want to take the time investment of recreating all that work from scratch.
For instance,
I understand branch prediction, cache lines and inter-processor synchronization. But I'm no kernel developer.
I know what the assembler does, and its goals. But I haven't made one, and any I made would be sub-optimal
.. This proceeds through compilers, operating systems and up to the web stack.
I mean, writing a renderer that fully implements "HTML 5" along with ALL relevant standards - that's a massive software effort. I barely understand it, but I understand enough to get the job done.
This is simply a direct counter to your argument that "every non-idiot thinks full stack means everything since the stone age"
I appreciate your apology above.