Of note: "rolling update" doesn't mean that the updates are any less stable than in a fixed update system like Ubuntu. (So this has nothing to do with the difference between development version and stable version for instance). All it means is that you have access to the updates as soon as they are released rather than have to wait for months until the folks working for your distro put all the udpates of the past x months together into a distro update. So if an update is going to break your system, it will do so whether you get it right away or whether you wait for it for 6 months and then get it.
This Wikipedia section is more reliable than my views though
Advantages and disadvantages: end-user experience
As far as the end-user experience, standard releases are often viewed as more stable and bug-free since software conflicts can be more easily addressed and the software stack more thoroughly tested and evaluated, during the software development cycle. For this reason, they tend to be the preferred choice in enterprise environments such as computer workstations, IT consulting, system administration, and mission-critical tasks such as data management and servers.
However, rolling releases offer more current software which can also provide increased stability and fewer software bugs along with the additional benefits of new features, greater functionality, faster running speeds, and improved system and application security, among others. With the last of these, software security, the rolling release model can have advantages in timely security updates, fixing system or application security bugs and vulnerabilities, that standard releases may have to wait till the next release for. Though, in a rolling release distribution, where the user has chosen to run it as a highly dynamic system, the constant flux of software packages can introduce new unintended software vulnerabilities.
Basically, as you said, pros and cons for both Let's just say that I am happy with my system.