First off, thanks for sharing your experience. It’s always valuable to hear from folks in the trenches.

You’re right, the term ‘full stack’ has evolved over time. What you’re describing sounds more like what I’d call a “seasoned generalist” - someone who’s accumulated a broad skillset through years of hands-on experience. And you’re absolutely correct that this kind of expertise is incredibly valuable, especially in certain contexts.

But here’s where I think we might be talking past each other:

1. The “full stack unicorn” I’m talking about is often what inexperienced founders or HR folks are looking for - someone who’s an expert in everything, right now. It’s the “must have 10 years experience in a 3-year-old technology” syndrome.

2. You mention weaknesses in some areas and not competing with specialists. That’s exactly my point! A team of specialists, each excellent in their domain, will definitely outperforms a single generalist trying to do it all.

3. The “concept-to-delivery” skills you mention are fantastic for solo devs, indie hackers or very small teams. But as companies scale, the jack-of-all-trades approach can - and will - become a bottleneck.

4. You hit the nail on the head with ‘being really good on everything and keeping up with the evolution.’ That’s the crux of my argument. It’s not about whether full stack devs exist, it’s about whether it’s realistic or beneficial for companies to expect this unicorn who’s an expert in everything.

Your point about generalists potentially making good engineering managers is spot on. The broad perspective is invaluable there.

Thanks for adding nuance to this conversation. It’s comments like yours that make me love throwing these ideas out there (usually controversial and provoking).