>On the bright side, uv is written in Rust, which makes distributing prebuilt releases practical, and helps end-users getting started. OTOH Linux+GNU+GCC pale in comparison to Rust's own bootstrapping problem - each Rust compiler is written in some previous release/dialect of Rust, all the way back to the pre-1.0 days, when it was written in an obscure dialect of OCaml. There are efforts underway to make Rust bootstrappable, but as of right now the Python ecosystem might be painting itself into a corner with slowly making Rust a hard dependency.
Thankfully the Python ecosystem probably isn't going to adopt this crazy Rust dependency. The Rust nuts are unbelievably and laughably persistent but this is an overcomplicated solution that nobody asked for. You could probably say the same about Rust in the Linux kernel so who knows...
Rust-the-language is fine. Rust-the-blessed-toolchain is the problem. In practical terms, it delivers enormous value, it's about the problems that lay down the road.
Once Rust can be easily bootstrapped? Like you can build the official Go toolchain from 1.4?
I'd argue Rust in Linux is less of a problem than Linux itself growing out of bounds. Compare seccomp with OpenBSD's pledge/unveil. But there's a reason why Linux is winning by a margin of 100.000x: it's simply more practical, even if less simple.
I don't think Rust delivers this tremendous value. Bootstrapping it doesn't do much unless everything gets migrated forward to the bootstrappable version. It's got all the worst aspects of a systems language combined with all the pain points of npm. I don't want to be required to be online or to download hundreds of unvetted bullshit packages to make a simple program, and that's the way it's made.
Thankfully the Python ecosystem probably isn't going to adopt this crazy Rust dependency. The Rust nuts are unbelievably and laughably persistent but this is an overcomplicated solution that nobody asked for. You could probably say the same about Rust in the Linux kernel so who knows...