No. I mean: Teach me how to build a compiler binary, and I'll be able to build pretty much whatever binaries I need whenever I need them for a lifetime. (What's the point of having a compiler at all if you're not going to build your own binaries?)
> the "fish" are free
That's true. But if you know how to build them you can make new kinds of fish. That can come in handy if you don't like the free fish.
> (What's the point of having a compiler at all if you're not going to build your own binaries?)
By 1) minimising the times you need to compile yourself 2) making it easy to compile yourself (e.g. easier than autoconf/automake but even those are examples which have said goal in mind).
> That's true. But if you know how to build them you can make new kinds of fish. That can come in handy if you don't like the free fish.
Its not difficult to learn how to make these new fish, but learn it when its the best or required (ie. only) solution.
A better analogy is that you have a hammer at your disposal, but you refuse to use it because when you learn to use your feet instead that's a useful practice. Its not; its only useful the time you don't have a hammer (which you usually have around). Instead, try to keep your hammer with you.
Teach me how to build a compiler binary, and I'll be building compiler binaries for a lifetime.
which is somewhat less inspirational. Even less so when replacing "compiler binary" by "other people's code".
I think the main problem with your analogy is that in IT, the "fish" are free.