[sidww2]

I'm in CompBio and the sense I get is that it's a lot easier to get someone to try your tool if all you have to do is provide them the jar which they just have to click on and it runs. Whereas with compilation, you first have to make sure you have all the platforms covered and then force the potential user to select the right executable for the platform.

[burntsushi]

Just distribute the source.

I'm in CompBio too and actively avoid software distributed as just jar files. Give me the source so I can fix your (probably) broken software.

(Yes, I have a low opinion of the quality of software in my field.)

[sidww2]

I don't think forcing potential users to compile a program is going lower the barrier much. A lot of the users could be biologists and they would likely not know how to compile the source. I do agree that the software should be open source.

[burntsushi]

> A lot of the users could be biologists

In my experience, biologists are allergic to the command line. They need web interfaces.

In the case where they don't mind using the command line, providing Linux x64 binaries (along with the source) is plenty sufficient.

Note that I'm not saying they shouldn't distribute the jar if that's the kind of game they want to play. I'm saying they shouldn't restrict themselves to distributing a jar.

> I do agree that the software should be open source.

Me too. But it's not an ideological point. I wasn't kidding when I said that, in all probability, I'll have to fix whatever software I'm using. Or at the very least, read the source code to understand what it is that they've implemented. (You'd think it'd be clear from the methods section in their paper...)

/rant

[616c]

Regardless of field, I see this as the right attitude. You would be surprised how many eyerolls I get, even in IT!