A million times yes to this article.
What a thoroughly bloody good article.
I am one of those so called unicorn/generalist but I consider myself as a loser who works as a three or four specialists.
Great one.And unicorn is probably the worse name created for the industry.
As a proud generalist, I endorse this article.
I disagree with the article, simply because I disagree with the definition of unicorn. To me a unicorn isn't just a designer who can code, but someone who is very good at both. They are very hard to find, hence: unicorn.
Hate to break this to you, but unicorns aren't simply hard to find -- they don't exist.
Actual unicorns don't exist, but the unicorns referenced in this article do. The definition of a unicorn in the tech industry is someone who is very good at design and code. Someone who can go from wireframes to deployed code on his or her own keeping a high quality throughout the journey in all areas.
These people actually exist, but they are rare.
It seems to me that those who are unable to become high-quality designers and developers/engineers are the ones trying to convince the world that so-called unicorns don't exist.
I understood your point. I was just making the observation that it's weird for somebody in the industry to define a "unicorn" as something that actually exists.