Another side of this argument is that the rate of Elm ecosystem change is far more manageable than for JS.
A "stable JS framework" is an oxymoron, I'm afraid. My JS tools and NPM packages continuously change from under me, but somehow that's considered normal and not a problem.
I've just looked up a project I have with a mere 9 dependencies, and 7 of them have gone through multiple major version changes since the end of 2019. The other two have had minor releases. None are unchanged, even though all were already "stable" when I added them! Will the code still work if I update them? I don't know. Do I want to spend the time continuously tracking the changes to these dependencies, testing, making new releases of my project? Not really.
Perhaps I could continue deferring dependency updates, but that might make my job that much more painful when I have a legitimate reason to update (eg. for some new features I need) as half the package APIs will have changed beyond recognition by then.
I have so much less trouble with going back to Elm projects and picking up where I left off. That should be taken into consideration too.