Applicant: Well, I wrote a code to optimize a UAV flight path to avoid enemy radar and minimize fuel consumption, and debugged another controls code to prevent people from dying. Did some debugging on a computational electrodynamics code for radar simulations...
Recruiter: Oh. You know what's cool? Photo sharing.
[1] At Raytheon, if you were the one developing radar avoidance algorithms[2] and code, that was probably your title.
[2] "Algorithms", another word that has slightly different meaning leading to major misinterpretation.
At my company, you're permitting to choose a public title of either your job description (e.g. Lead Data Scientist), your "engineering rank" (e.g. Lead Scientist/Technologist/Developer/Engineer) or your consulting rank e.g (Lead Associate). All of these are equivalent in rank and promotion opportunities, but it does give you some flexibility on what you can place on your resume.
I'm sure it happens sometimes. I just haven't personally seen it with the roles "Software developer", "coder", and "programmer". That is effectively the same thing everywhere I've seen it. Now if I'm a programmer and say I worked in primarily QA or database position we have a problem, but there's no real nuance between those three titles.
"I saw the best minds of my generation... writing spam filters." — Neal Stephenson, Solve For X
People extoll the virtues of a solid university COS degree, not because it explicitly teaches skills for industry, but because it creates a background to help new and novel problems. Certainly your previous work background provides a similar advantage.
If you can perform those tasks, certainly whatever the consumer-focused needs you can learn. As Aristotle said, "For the things we have to learn before we can do, we learn by doing."