Should every compiler stack have prioritized cross compilation over other features? (I vote: YES). Cross compiling programs has always been a PITA for most languages.
It would be great if Zig cc could be paired with vcpkg  for a nice cross-compiling development environment. Looks like vckpg requires a C++ compiler though.
You can't look at C which started in the 1970s and C++ which started in the 1980s and have expected them to even consider cross-compilation, when Autoconf wasn't even released until 1991.
Most other languages make it _possible_ to generate some sort of artifact usable from different operating systems but not necessarily easy. I think Java only relatively recently included a standard way to create a bundle including a minimal JVM distribution with an app to make it usable when the user doesn't have an installed JVM (and again, there were a bunch of different non standard solutions of varying quality before that). Even now I wouldn't say the Java solution is easy to use.
I could continue in this fashion with different languages, but you get the idea.
I heard go is pretty good in ease of cross compilation, and well, looks like Zig is doing great in this area too. Ah! .net core is apparently pretty good in this area these days too.
For that reason, Java and Python didn't start out with fully self-contained bundles as a design goal. It just wasn't practical in the 90s. Obviously, yes, if they had managed to correctly predict and plan for three decades of technological improvement, then sure, we'd be working in a very different technological landscape. But they couldn't possibly have, and solutions built on the old languages are always fraught with disagreement. So, we use new languages, like Go and Rust, which are developed with modern needs in mind.
This is what makes porting hard work. Cross-compiling is only the first step of a long trip.
But it's also fair to say that if we had always considered those things as inseparable parts of the "compiler suite" that might have made everyone better off.