I still let them try, because it beats me having to check "is wsl good now", and they learn much better from personal experience than someone more senior who uses arch btw just telling them "don't use windows"
Only weirdness has been systemd can sometimes be quirky, and GUI stuff can be glitchy (which doesn't affect me much, because 99% of what I do is in the terminal)
So, anecdotally it is perfectly adequate for workloads beyond a Hello World. What issues are you running into?
Compute etc is fine!
Permissions between Windows and Unix are always (generally) a mismatch, as is the nature of OS differences.
I use WSL2 every day and it has some annoying quirks with how their Wayland implementation behaves with DWM, but otherwise it's just a Linux environment.
1) a lightly-patched Linux kernel
2) a bunch of esoteric bridge stuff, namely:
2A) 9P for mounting the Windows filesystem on Linux and vice-versa,
2B) a Wayland server implemented via RDP(?!)
2C) Hyper-V NICs, dynamic memory and other VM integrations.
2D) even weirder esoterica like whatever magic lets CUDA work (and... directx? for reasons??)
but there's no canonical (pun intended) userspace. there are many Linux distros available; adapting a distro is usually pretty easy. for example, NixOS-WSL is lightweight and works quite well.
philosophically, WSL2 is a VM, but it's not an emulator, if that makes sense. there's a kind of convergence between OS and VM that's been going on for a decade and WSL2 has been riding that wave.
(disclaimer: I work for MS but not on Windows or WSL. I just think the arch is neat.)
Dunno, looks pretty Linux to me.
(WSL1 did suck badly because it combined the limitations of NT - slow file ops and process spawn - with the limitations of a compatibility layer. WSL2 is good enough for compatibility testing work on e.g. dotnet)
Nowadays WSL implies version 2.0, who is still using the half done implementation of WSL 1.0?
Or using Virtual Box, VMWare Workstation, QEMU,...