lwall

Kind of disagree.

As a developer who works with code base that's got a git history going back over a decade and lot of legacy parts that haven't been touched in a long while, written by devs who've long since left, I fairly frequently wish they'd been more careful with the commit history.

You do mention project context as being relevant, but if bug fixes and refactoring _can_ be decoupled, it's a kindness to pull-request reviewers (if there are any) to do so and keep PRs small. It's also helpful if something needs to be rolled back if the commit history is fairly coherent.

Perhaps managers who can't see they're on shaky ground making such a joke are liable to be problematic in some other capacity.

Fully agree. I work on a small team (3 devs + 1 designer) and all three devs are, to some degree, full-stack. We all have areas of relative strength and weakness, but all can and do work across the full stack.

It also seemed pretty absurd to me that the author suggested the only reason any kind of full-stack developer is conceivable is JS on the backend, as if the main issue is needing to know more than one language.

No. "Here's an example of the effects of climate change" is not the same thing as "this is proof of climate change"