A while ago i switched to wayland since it seemed to be the new cool thing that everyone was talking about in the linux community, and i wanted in on the action too. So i decided to use river.
River is very similar to bspwm, all configuration is done inside a bash script. its fairly straight-forward to use.
The only issue i had is i couldn't go into fullscreen without the window hiding the bar, which was a bit annoying but not a major issue.
Later on i tried out dwl, which i liked a lot more compared to river. Coming from dwm im a little biased though. Setting up dwl is almost identical to dwm, all configuration is done inside a config.h file.
Wine ran almost perfectly on river (with Xwayland), but on dwl it is almost unusable despite enabling xwayland in config.mk so idk whats going on there.
What i really like about wayland compared to xorg is, wayland doesn't run as a server in the background separate to the WM, its one with the WM, which feels more secure (to me).
Unlike Xorg, wayland is a protocol meaning there can be (and are) many different implementations of it. which in my opinion is how programs on linux are intended to be.
So far i haven't had any major issues that'll make me switch back to Xorg, i think im going to stick with wayland for the forseeable future.