As a recovering CS academic, I have to say - boo-fucking-hoo. Tell me exactly where the funds to do this extra level of support is supposed to come from? Is Mozzila paying for those grad student hours? No? Well then.
Given that, it seems reasonable that you should make the modicum of effort to publish your code.
Also, don't construct a false dichotomy. Publishing your code (at all) does not mean you have to make it production-quality or provide support for it.
No. If you publish something that's incomplete or doesn't have all the right dependencies listed, etc, it's not really of any use. Writing up compiling instructions plus dependencies plus how to run it plus input files etc takes time and by the time you've got it to the state that someone else can run it, now it's "production-quality".
> Given that, it seems reasonable that you should make the modicum of effort to publish your code.
There's currently no incentive/requirement to publish code, it uses time and does not increment your publication counter. Find the incentive and you'll start seeing published code.
Again you're creating a false dichotomy which is just fundamentally false.
Even if you only published half your code—to the point where it doesn't even compile—that's still helpful.
In the status quo, I have to write your entire code from scratch.
If you published what you have, I would merely have to debug the issues and figure out what the dependencies are.
I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that some code is better than no code.
So published papers are held to a high standard -- filtered through editors and peer review -- while publishing code can be half-assed at best? I still disagree; if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.
We're pushing a generation of kids without rich uncles to bail them out (myself being one of them; I start university in fall) towards massive, crippling debt. The places they're going aren't hurting for money. Is it that unreasonable to ask for open access?
You could pressure universities / departments to make reproducibility a requirement for graduation, but I don't see why they would follow along, because this is not going to help the university get more funding or publish more papers (prestige).
Now, if organizations and companies were willing to put money behind software reproducibility (maybe some sort of fellowships or million-dollar research grants to labs), then the incentives would be aligned.
Every publication involving data and code or analysis should publish them to a degree that makes validation possible in at least as detailed a way as portrayed in "Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogo ff" (http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/31e2ff374b6377b2ddec04dea...)