[sm_ts]

I've had to compile only a few times C/++ programs, and the experience can't be really compared to Rust (probably, to any other language :)).

Lately I've cross-compiled a few times Linux/Windows programs, and the only thing I had to do (assuming that the underlying crates are compatible, and that the development libraries are in place, which is required for any language) was:

  rustup target add x86_64-pc-windows-gnu
  rustup toolchain install stable-x86_64-pc-windows-gnu

That's all. Then one can compile with:

  cargo build --target x86_64-pc-windows-gnu

I've also compiled for RISC-V, and it was the same procedure.

There are surely issues with individual crates, and possibly with lower-tier targets, but to characterize this procedure as "user-hostile" doesn't make sense.

[pornel]

That's true only for static libraries and pure-Rust projects. For executables and dynamic libraries Rust relies on system-provided linker (except nightly that can enable lld) and target libc already present on the OS (the nice part zig has, but Rust doesn't).

Rust totally craps out if you try to make a binary or dylib and you don't already have cross-compilation toolchain on your OS. It's doable from a Linux distro that has cross packages and a GNU target. It's a PITA for anything else, including anything from Windows and macOS hosts.

`zig cc` is actually useful even for cross-compiling Rust projects, because some Rust crates depend on C libraries.