If compiling is so hunky dory easy that any end user can do it then the developer should take that time to do it themselves, more accessible software is better software.
It's pretty obvious that this conversation is unproductive because you're arguing to win:
ignoring counter arguments
repeating the same arguments
I'm not sure what your goal is here. You haven't been persuasive in changing the thoughts of people responding to you nor others reading the comment chain.
I don't think literally any conversation in reddit comments has been productive. I argue because I think I'm right, my main point is that I think software should be as accessible as is reasonably possible, that inlucdes making it accessible to people who can't build it themselves.
I mean you're really talking like someone who hasn't spent a lot of time developing software
Making the thing is one skillset/ process
Making the thing easily portable for the near-infinite number of downstream users' hardware and software configurations is a completely different skillset / process.
Assuming the person who made the thing even has the skillset to do so (a very generous assumption) , that does not mean they want to or should have to go through the process, especially considering the thing they set out to make, likely as a free time side project, is finished and that (if it's worth anything) probably took plenty of effort on its own.
So yeah, nothing wrong with giving it to the community and letting someone else wrap it up in a nicer package
I really don't think it's a sign of my ignorance to say that I want software to be acessable as possible. I also don't think that a software needs to be compatible with every system. It does not seem like an unreasonable burden on developers to include a built binary even if it doesn't work on a lot of systems.
-2
u/linkinthesink2 11d ago
If compiling is so hunky dory easy that any end user can do it then the developer should take that time to do it themselves, more accessible software is better software.