You're saying that like no work is being put into new Ubuntu's releases. Or its developers don't contribute to GNOME, for instance.
I tried Fedora Core several years ago. Got some broken package resolutions the very same day.
Reinstalled to Ubuntu, it had been more stable (probably simply thanks to 'apt', but still), and I didn't bother with Fedora since. Also, I'm not relishing having to learn rpm/yum/whatisname, with its new arguments, its different set of capabilities, and different names for packages I'm already familiar with.
Speaking of "modern and advanced", though, does it also support the NVIDIA driver's new "offload" PRIME mode? The one where you don't need to reboot or even relogin to use the discrete card.
Rather than Fedora, though, I opted to run Debian sid. I get all the up to date fresh-from-the-oven software packages I care about, can pilfer from external Ubuntu apt repos if I need to, without having to clear out any of the garish brown and sponsored Ubuntu junk, and it's fairly easy to install and maintain. Despite being the permanently unstable branch, it's never really meaningfully broken on me.
It is a problem if Hipster-Developers work on bleeding edge Linux, because their software will run on their system but nearly nowhere else (including their own system a year later). If you wanna develope do it on a debian or buntu - if it works there, others won't have a problem
Not sure with I totally agree with him, but we had multiple problems which seemed to proof his point.