When I was new to the Linux desktop world (late 90s to 200x) I tried lots of different distros and (X11) window managers and tools and whatnot. Changed themes a lot. And so on. And I think there's value in all that, because it expands your horizon of what's possible on the desktop, how different UI/UX paradigms work out in practice for you, and you learn how to use different environments.

On the other hand, there's also value in having a consistent, well-integrated desktop environment. It can mean less "pain points" in various circumstances, and it's also efficient when multiple programs share the same libraries or code base instead of having separate tools all around.

In the end, it comes down to what works best for you. But this might also change over time. For example I'm really considering switching to Cosmic once it's mature. I'm also considering taking a look at Niri because it seems well thought-out. But currently I feel cozy using Plasma at home and Gnome at work because Plasma is currently the least-annoying and at work I still use Gnome because it's been historically more stable than Plasma for me. I've tweaked Plasma's hotkeys so they work more like Gnome's and since I also need to use a couple of Windows-based systems at work I've also configured common Windows shortcuts like Super+L, Super+E, Super+R so that they all behave the same everywhere.

Oh, and my distro is Arch everywhere because I've used it for ages now and I like its technical simplicity, stability and modularity. It's the one distro that gets in my way the least.

I think one should learn enough to be flexible and be able to use everything, while also not being too narrow-minded and just focus on one solution too much. What works best for you now might not be the best choice for you in a couple of years.