When comparing bspwm vs Wayland, the Slant community recommends bspwm for most people. In the question“What are the best window managers for Linux?” bspwm is ranked 6th while Wayland is ranked 26th. The most important reason people chose bspwm is:
It has a low footprint.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Very lightweight
It has a low footprint.
Pro Very flexible
The keyboard shortcut are handled by another module so it's easy to use other inputs. The configuration is also simple.
Pro Based on binary space partitioning
The windows tiling is handled as the leaves of a full binary tree. This makes it easy to partition as you like.
Pro Drag&drop / Mouse support for resize/move
You can resize, switch panes, and resize tiles via the mouse.
Pro Open source
It's open source
Pro Live configuration updates
No need to restart for updating configurations.
Pro Simple, adheres to the UNIX philosophy
Configuration takes much less work than in similar window managers. Hotkey binding is handled by a separate utility, sxhkd.
Pro Simple interface
All actions of the window manager (like opening or resizing a window, changing the workspace, etc.) are handled by a program called bspc, which communicates with bspwm over a socket connection. The config file is just a shell executable making calls to that program. This makes it very easy to write your own scripts to handle bspwm's behavior.
Pro Easily scriptable / modular
All window management is done via the bspc command allowing for easy scripting and extensibility. This also means your sxhkd keybinds can be ported elsewhere without being tied to the wm.
Pro Adherent to the Linux philosophy: Do one thing and do it right
Pro Comes without a compositor
You can to choose which compositor you want! A popular one is compton.
Out of the box it "Lacks transparency support" but if you choose to add compton then you can have transparency, blur etc.
Pro Simplifies the graphic stack
Wayland simplifies the graphics stack by trying to force everything through a GEM/DRM stack and straight into the kernel. Furthermore, it manages compositing itself.
Pro Easy to maintain
Wayland has no drawing APIs. Instead, a Wayland client gets a DRM buffer handle, which is practically just a pointer to a graphics memory. Practically Wayland does not care how the client draws to that buffer, it only copies the client's buffers on the screen.
The removes a lot of complexity (because Wayland just pushes the complex stuff to the other layers of the stack) and by making the clients responsible for all the rendering, they can be smarter on how they do things like double-buffering for example.
Pro Best Linux User Experience Overall
Very responsive Touchpad performance + 3,4-finger Gestures, Smooth Animations and No Screen Tearing. Also compatibility for old applications using XWayland.
Con Poorly documented
Compared to something like i3 for example, a user following through i3's documentation is basically guaranteed to get a working desktop suited to their needs. Setting up bspwm is much more of a headache due to developers assuming things are clearer than they are.
Con Lacks transparency support
Like most window managers there is no built in compositing, which means no transparencies.
Con No mechanisms to configure input
Tools like xinput and xmodmap that help customize keyboard and mouse input are incompatible with Wayland, have no corollary, and there is no clear roadmap for providing their functionality.
Con Little driver support
Most closed sourced drivers do not support the KMS/shared-GEM/shared-DRM technologies on which Wayland works. While this may be okay for open source purists, who only want to use graphic cards that have open source drivers available, it may not sit well with people who spend a lot of money for high-end graphic cards only to get some crappy 3D performance.
Although it should be noted that NVIDIA has declared that they will start supporting Wayland, it may take years before Wayland fully supports most high-end drivers.
Con XWayland handles popup windows poorly
Con Superior technology but still not ready for everyday use
Wayland is great for developers, it's both technologically and architecturally superior to X, but X is the de-facto standard display server protocol for the *nix world for so long that you can basically expect everything to work with X (user applications, graphics drivers, DEs, etc. etc.) which cannot be said for Wayland. Actually there are still too many issues with Wayland that I think it's still far from being ready for the general users/consumers today. It seems there are still years of work ahead before Wayland can fully replace X as suitable for everyday use other than running some GUI text-editors and IDEs for coding, and maybe by that time both Wayland and X will be replaced by something newer... Wayland surely has superior technology and design, but those don't necessarily mean much for the general users today (remember the RISC vs. CISC war back in the 90's, and that back when Linux kernel was first developed, it is arguably inferior to the MINIX kernel in terms of technological advance and architectural design)
Con Not much used in the Unix world
Currently its only nearly usable in the Linux world, everything else still uses X11.