> it's not really designed to build other language's code easily
That's quite funny to read, when the most low level crates rely on the cc crate to build C code (dependent of cc with the most downloads is backtrace, used by libstd, following that, openssl-sys, ring, libz-sys, you'll see those close to everywhere). But I see what you mean.
I guess the clearer way to state my point is that possibility and convenience are different things.
`build.rs` scripts are Turing complete, and you can make syscalls, so you can call arbitrary other build systems. The difference in difficulty varies from language to language: C usually has few dependencies (because dependency management is fragmented and thus difficult) and so is often straightforward to compile, but other languages aren't always as easy.
With a tangled mess of FFI dependencies Cargo stops being the best tool for the job.
That's quite funny to read, when the most low level crates rely on the cc crate to build C code (dependent of cc with the most downloads is backtrace, used by libstd, following that, openssl-sys, ring, libz-sys, you'll see those close to everywhere). But I see what you mean.