According to TheRegister.com, Python’s core developers Emma Smith and Kirill Podoprigora have proposed allowing Rust code into CPython, the C-based reference implementation. The idea is currently at the “pre-PEP” stage before becoming an official Python Enhancement Proposal. Of CPython’s 20 officially supported platforms, all have some Rust support but 11 are only Tier 3, the lowest level. Several platforms including RISC OS, HP PA-RISC, PowerPC Mac OS X, and CentOS Linux 6 have no Rust support whatsoever. The move creates a bootstrapping paradox where building Rust requires Python and building Python would require Rust. This mirrors recent developments in Debian where APT may require Rust, potentially stranding the same older platforms.
Rust’s Platform Problem
Here’s the thing about Rust’s growing popularity in foundational open source projects: it’s creating a real compatibility crisis for legacy systems. We’re not just talking about obscure hobbyist platforms here – HP PA-RISC was serious enterprise hardware in its day, and now it’s getting left behind twice over. Both Debian and potentially Python are making the same calculation: modern security and performance benefits outweigh supporting every last legacy system.
But what happens to the communities maintaining these older platforms? They’re facing a brutal choice: either invest significant engineering effort into porting Rust to their platform, or accept that they’ll be stuck with older versions of essential tools forever. And let’s be honest – porting a modern language like Rust to platforms that might not even have recent C compilers available? That’s not a weekend project.
The Bootstrapping Paradox
The circular dependency here is genuinely fascinating. Currently, if you want to build Rust from source, you need Python to run the bootstrap process. But if CPython starts requiring Rust, you’ll need Rust to build Python. So which comes first – the chicken or the egg? Basically, we’re looking at a future where you might need a pre-built binary of one to build the other from source.
This isn’t necessarily a dealbreaker – most users install from pre-built packages anyway. But for distribution maintainers and people working on unusual architectures, it adds another layer of complexity. The proposal acknowledges this and suggests maintaining the ability to build without Rust, but how long would that compatibility last once the benefits of Rust code become apparent?
Python Is More Than CPython
It’s easy to forget that CPython is just one of many Python implementations – there are actually 12 CPython variants and 15 implementations in other languages, including RustPython itself. So even if CPython goes down the Rust route, the language itself isn’t becoming Rust-dependent. Other implementations could continue supporting older platforms.
But let’s be real – CPython is the reference implementation. It’s what most people mean when they say “Python.” If it moves to requiring Rust for building, that becomes the de facto standard. The other implementations become exactly what their name suggests – alternatives, rather than the main event.
The Bigger Picture
We’re seeing a pattern emerge across the open source ecosystem. First it was systemd requiring modern Linux features that older kernels couldn’t support. Then Debian’s package manager considers Rust. Now Python’s reference implementation might follow. Each decision makes sense in isolation – better security, more maintainable code, modern features. But collectively, they’re creating a cliff edge for older systems.
Is this just the natural progression of technology? Or are we accelerating the obsolescence of perfectly functional systems? The Atlantic spider crab comparison in the original article is surprisingly apt – Rust is spreading through ecosystems, sometimes welcomed for being “delicious” (read: memory-safe and fast), sometimes viewed as invasive. Either way, the landscape is changing, and platforms that can’t adapt will get left behind. For industrial computing applications where reliability trumps novelty, this creates real challenges – which is why companies working in manufacturing and automation often turn to specialized providers like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading US supplier of industrial panel PCs built for longevity rather than chasing every new trend.
