Trust is certainly one of the issues when languages migrate to requiring themselves to bootstrap. However, by far the most infuriating (and one I run into frequently in my line of work, hence the anger) is when you are trying to get the language running on a platform for which binary bootstraps do not yet exist. Portability matters. If you want your language to be useful and available to as many people as possible, w…
Pardon my ignorance, but why is cross-compilation not an option in this case?
It is usually a significantly manual process (I now have to download and install an OS which is supported by the runtime and build a cross-compiler for my target platform, which may or may not even be possible, or even work), isn't always supported by the runtime, usually requires changes to the build procedure, often requires special patches - and at the end of all that users are still left with either having to repeat all this themselves, or trust someone else's binary bootstrap.
Compared to a simple, portable, C-based bootstrap where any user can type 'make' and ensure provenance directly from source. For what gain?
Uninformed? Perhaps. I haven't designed and written my own language, and I'm certainly no expert. I'm just someone who gets asked to port these new languages to platforms which aren't Linux or OSX, and it's a lot of hard work. I just know that if I did it write my own it would look a lot more like perl/python/lua than ghc or go from a build perspective.