Rust has changed a lot in the past year. It lost lightweight tasks in September, it lost its runtime in December (so you can write C-ABI libraries with functions that can be called from C or any other language that can call C libraries, without needing any setup), the IO and filesystem libraries got rewritten around March, and it hit 1.0 in May, so the riskiness, documentation, community, and brokenness sharply changed for the better. If you haven't looked at Rust since about last winter, forget what you know about it. If that means it's a tiny language you haven't heard of, that's fine -- that's more accurate than thinking it's closely related to what it was a year ago.

A year ago Rust was (to first order) an awkward compromise between Go and C++11, in personality. Today it is strictly a better C++ (although arguably Go has been shifting in the same direction). It's not just a better C++, since there are fundamental ways of thinking about things (which this post touches on) that aren't and never will be pervasive in C++. On the flip side, the library ecosystem is much younger, so that definition of "better" is not yet there. But I'd argue that any long-term projects you might want to start in C or C++ could be better done in Rust, and I'm way more confident of that argument for Rust 1.x than for a hypothetical continuation of Rust as it was about 12-18 months ago.