That's correct. Rust is still a pretty young language; it's only been stable for five years. This doesn't mean that two years is meaningful in a broader sense, that is, this is one random anecdote. I know of a crate that still maintains Rust 1.13 compatibility, and that's about three and a half years. Still not actual evidence, of course.
Code that doesn't rely on soundness bugs written in 1.0 should generally compile on the latest stable release without issue. The vast majority Rust users in our annual survey report that their code never breaks, and of those that have, the majority have said that it is trivial or easy to fix.
We put a tremendous amount of work (and spend a lot of money!) into ensuring this. If upgrading your Rust compiler is a significant issue for you our anyone else, please report these things to us.
Upgrading my compiler isn't an issue. I haven't opted to transitioning to Rust at all in the first place until things calm down. I've yet to feel that my career has once ever been impacted by not learning it.
I'm in hardware land, not JavaScript frontends. Innovation there is more about the product features, sensor capabilities, power consumption. Generally solving customer issues.
Selling adoption of a new language to the superiors or new job interviewers to use in production isn't an issue about compiler upgrades or the merits of using cargo fix. They are more concerned about how many people are available to be hired that has extensive expertise in the language, making hiring hard, and support is still in flux. And that is what I'm reporting, tooling is more than about the compiler, the world around it and human issues, particularly non-technical humans are also at hand.
And until there is stability and a language people don't feel is a moving target to learn, that will remain the chicken and egg scenario.
