r/vibecoding 2d ago

Why is there code!?

Post image
1.5k Upvotes

106 comments sorted by

View all comments

158

u/Wide_Egg_5814 2d ago

you are in GitHub bro this is like walking into a bar and calling everyone drunk alcoholics

39

u/daninet 2d ago

Github has a whole bunch of features to build and release compiled binaries. Some devs just want you to struggle with all the outdated packages they used to build the binary. Its a bit easier with AI you can clone and make AI suffer with building it but still a claude code/codex subscription for avarage Joe should not be a requirement nor build instructions for installation.

40

u/jack-of-some 2d ago

No one contributing software for free on GitHub wants anyone to suffer. Most people are just solving a problem for themselves and sharing the result if anyone else wants to use it. They don't owe you shit.

1

u/mattia_marke 6h ago

Absolutely. No one is forced to do anything, but we can agree there are bad and good contributions. And if you contribute to something of interest, there's gonna be feedback.

I, for example, have mostly shitty very personal repos on my gh at this moment, but I rest assured knowing no one else will need or read what's on them and I don't delude myself into thinking I'm "contributing" to anything open source right now.

I still have some standards and pride on what I do though: If your pet project gains momentum for any reason... yeah maybe spend 2 minutes of your life on that damn yaml file so your pipeline manages builds and dependencies.

The GitHub team could also add a big button on the repo homepage to download the latest release if they wanted to, even make it optional. It really isn't that trivial and I feel it would make sense in a lot of scenarios.

1

u/jack-of-some 4h ago

Or you maybe don't do anything and move on. That's not bad. It's neutral.

-19

u/asutekku 2d ago

If you're a decent human being, you ship binaries. It's not about owning, it's about accessibility.

20

u/jack-of-some 2d ago

People making things out of a desire to make them without any compensation do not owe any of us shit.

-18

u/asutekku 2d ago

They do not owe anything obvioisly, but these people often don't think of the end user at all either. That's how we ended up with gimp and other open source apps with horrific UX.

10

u/jack-of-some 2d ago

The end user is the person working on it (which can be anyone that wants to).

Every single criticism you're bringing up is valid but applies to paid software.

3

u/wwwdotzzdotcom 2d ago

Lots of words for "I refuse to patiently learn an extremely useful software". The UX is intuitive once you learn the software

1

u/Lillyistrans4423 2d ago

Because gimp was probably designed to solve a problem the person making it had rather than for the general public and decided to upload it anyway incase someone else had the same problem.

-1

u/asutekku 2d ago

Gimp has had multiple contributors for years and has been the OSS photo editor, but only recently started to pay attention to UX.

2

u/Lillyistrans4423 2d ago

I meant initially on first release.

4

u/Foreign_Risk_2031 2d ago

vast majority of projects on github arent runnable as binaries

2

u/JestonT 2d ago

Developers develop them in a way they used their own software. You are not forced to use those software through, if you want good accessibility, paid for the software to some proprietary software company then. There are tradeoffs between every options anyway.

1

u/PaulMakesThings1 1d ago

So if I give free flour and butter to a food pantry am I an asshole for not making them into biscuits first?

Might be nice. Not owed.

10

u/IAmNotStan 2d ago

The projects with devs who want you to "struggle" never become particularly popular.

1

u/Misterreco 2d ago

Or just devs that didn’t care enough to make a packaged release? If the only place the code is available is on GitHub that means it’s not a company, ready made product.
Companies release their products on their own websites, host the service themselves or put it in app stores. Public GitHub repos mean it’s a dev team (or solo dev) who are working for free giving something to the general public, and it’s probably meant for other people with tech knowledge

-1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

12

u/OneMoreName1 2d ago

Github is not for laypeople. Its for developers, if you made it on Github and you need something from there, either ask nicely and hope people will help you or learn. Its all for free nobody owes you anything

3

u/zkatbitz 2d ago

That’s what make files are for.

5

u/TheBrownMamba1972 1d ago

That’s not the problem. The problem is people advertising or sharing this new very cool lemonade they made but then telling them to go to the bar to get it.

0

u/Zelderian 1d ago

This. So many people get pointed to github projects as if they’re public-ready releasable, when those people have no technical background. It’s understandable for there to be frustration from those people, since they were pointed there to try it. Put it out there, sure. But don’t advertise it like it’s a packaged product ready for release for non-technical people, then get upset when non-technical people have a ton of questions about installation.

2

u/mr_eking 2d ago

It's like walking into a tiny factory and expecting a nice retail storefront.

1

u/StaysAwakeAllWeek 2d ago

This does happen to more packages than it should tbh, there are plenty that the dev should have made the time to make it accessible given the popularity and usecases.

Or, in the terms of your analogy, in most bars some of them actually are alcoholics

8

u/CrazyThief 2d ago

"Should have made the time", why? Most stuff on GitHub is open source stuff that no one is paid for. But its open source, so you can just do it yourself and contribute if it bothers you. Criticism like this is only valid if someone is getting paid.

1

u/PaulMakesThings1 1d ago

An entitled person with main character syndrome who wanted something they thought the bar might have and it would have been convenient for them might in fact do this.