Since @gnat redirected me here for what he called career advice: Is it worth it to learn a language that's not yet feature complete? Specifically talking about .NET Core 1.0 and ASP.NET Core 1.0, since that's the stack I'm currently focusing on
@NateKerkhofs being an early adopter can be frustrating, since features you're relying on can change in the next version. However, you might also have the time to build an in-depth understanding of the technology, and will be ahead of the pack when it hits the mainstream with a stable release. Of course, it might never take off and you have wasted your effort. It might be more useful to focus on short-term employability rather than a long-term gamble.
My personal strategy encourages trying out new stuff. I generally end up toying with/learning/working on 10 languages/frameworks/technologies/concepts/personal projects per year. I do that because it's fun, not because I get tangible experience. But I notice that even this fairly superficial interaction noticeably broadens my experience, which allows me to quickly learn new stuff as the need arises.
@AncientSwordRage same, last time it came up here the opinion seemed to be that Rust is taking too long to get feature complete and stable, especially since Go did that ages ago and is already a legitimately popular language
@AncientSwordRage Rust is currently at a quite ready v1.6.0. The language is quite nice, like a redesign of C++ with some Haskell mixed in. I hope it takes off, because it has the capability to displace C++ as a safe systems language.
@Ixrec Rust tries to be stable now (v1 was released May '15), and we won't see any big changes to the core language. No, significant software in Rust has yet to be written. However, Rust does not have strong corporate backing like Go or Swift, so I'll wait a few years before I evaluate the success of the language as compared to its quality.
@PreferenceBean C++ has four killer features: C compatibility, RAII, zero-cost abstractions, generic programming. Rust does each of those, and provides way more type safety while doing so. I've seen too many segfaults to not long after Rust-like lifetime management. Also, & vs. & mut is far safer than & const vs & in C++.
If you need help with architecture design then try Programmers.SE. Be sure to read carefully their on-topic questions and their posting rules. — user180355126 secs ago