Sometimes people like to do things just do do them, because the idea is cool. Sometimes an idea is cool because it has real world ramifications just for existing (trusting trust, supply chain attacks), though many people like to argue about whether or not this particular idea is Just Cool TM or Actually Useful TM. I don’t think the article made any false pretenses either way- it seemed evident to me that at least some of the motivation was “because how? I want to do the how!” And that’s cool! Also, I think the article pretty clearly redirects your question. Duh he could just cross compile rust. But the whole article, literally the entirety of it, is dedicated to exploring the chicken/egg problem of “if rustc is written in rust, what compiles rustc?”, and the rabbithole of similar questions that arise for other languages. The answer to that question being both “rustc of course”, and also “another compiler written in some other language.” The author wants to explore the process of making the compiler in [the/an] ‘other language’ because it’s Cool.

Just because something has already been done, does not mean there’s no worth in doing it- nor that there is only worth in doing it for educational and/or experiential purposes :)

Cross-compilation is orthogonal to bootstrapping, which is the major motivating factor for having something like what is described earlier in this thread: a small compiler written in C which can compile a subset of Rust, used to compile a larger, feature complete Rust compiler in that Rust subset -- versus what we have right now, which is a Rust compiler written in Rust which requires an existing Rust compiler binary, which means we have an unmitigated supply chain attack vector.

If you change your question to "why does anyone care about bootstrapping?", the answer would revolve around that aforementioned supply chain attack vector.

For details, you could check out:

- Reading the 1984 paper "Reflections on Trusting Trust", for which Ken Thompson was given the ACM Turing award: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...

- Or watching this short Computerphile video on the above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ7lOus1FzQ

- You can read about the GNU Guix endeavor to achieve a 100% bootstrapped Linux development environment (using zero pre-compiled binaries), starting from a 357-byte HEX file: https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2023/the-full-source-bootstrap-...

Perhaps you're comfortable with the lack of assurances that non-boostrapable builds entails (everyone has a different appetite for risk); some others aren't though, and so they have an interest in efforts to mitigate the security risks inherent in trusting a supply chain of opaque binaries.

The post is about solving a specific same-architecture bootstrapping problem. Cross-compilation is irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes, they are because they want to target systems which explicitely disallow cross-compilation like Debian.

Yes, I think it's silly too but other people disagree and they are free to work on whatever they want. Do I think it's a mostly pointless waste of time? Obviously, I do. Still, I guess there are worst ones.

Note that the Rust project does use cross-compilation for the ports it supports itself and considering the amount of time they use features only available in the current version of rustc in rustc, I guess it's safe to assume they share my opinion on the usefulness of keeping Rust bootstrappable.

There are two kinds of bootstrapping:

* Bootstrapping a language on a new architecture using an existing architecture. With modern compilers this is usually done using cross compilation * Bootstrapping a language on an architecture _without_ using another architecture

The latter is mostly done for theoretical purposes like reproducibility like reflections on trusting trust