I would very much prefer if it did not happen. It does not really bring any benefits, but only brings horrors. Go and Rust both live in a statically linked state of bliss that should not be tainted.

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/

I agree. There are certainly many cases where static linking makes a lot of sense. The redundancy of statically linking a few self-contained applications can be negligible and the reduced administrative burden can be a great value. But a hypothetical future Rust-heavy distribution, with hundreds of programs, may be an exception.

I sometimes wonder what a lightweight "Rusty" distribution for consumer electronics applications might look like. You can go a long way with the Busybox monolithic binary approach, but that might be a pain for development and software updates at some point.