In order to accentuate that they should not be arranged by alphabetical order but by shared interest.
For example, Modeling and Sculpting workspace should be next to each other.
I propose to arrange them as is :
2D animation | 3D animation | Scripting | Modeling | Sculpting | UV Editing | Texture Painting | Shading | Rendering | Compositing | VideoEditing | Motion Tracking
I know that is not possible to display a different scene in a different workspace without creating another main window.
To be precise, I was thinking of having templates like in 2.79 or master.
It would be possible to restore a sub-menu Application Templates under File or Edit menu that would launch a template startup.blend file with different workspaces and to suppress 2D animation workspace from default startup file.
Default startup.blend file could contain less workspaces removing motion tracking and video editing ones, too. And specialized templates could contain more than one workspace.
And the purpose would be to show that user is not forced to keep all workspaces that he will not use.
To sum-up, yes, I am talking about application templates because it could have an impact on Workspaces choosen for default blend file.
And that will solve the fact that 2D animation workspace is not immediately useable with default scene.
But we could solve that in another way.
Default startup.blend file could contain a scene for 2D animation with a Grease Pencil object, a camera aligned to drawing plane and a viewport in Camera View.
That remark was just about 2 workspaces and not a suggestion to generalize that.
It was for Rendering and Sculpting workspaces.
For the first one, to go back and forth between Render Tab, World Tab, Lamp data Tab, View Layer tab, Scene Tab to set-up indirect lighting, exposure, color management, passes are not a corner case.
It is just a fact that when you start to modify a setting for rendering, it implies to modify a lot more.
User will probably also switch one of these Properties to Outliner from time to time.
Maybe you are also talking about Compositing.
I am not against closing Toolbar in Compositing editor.
I just think nodes are more discoverable with that than with Add menu.
But I am against closing Properties in Compositing editor.
Renaming a frame node or sockets of a nodegroup, editing properties of a node that is minimized by a focus on the whole nodetree that is very common practice.
Maybe in this workspace, Dope Sheet could take less space.
You are also forgetting that a user can maximize or minimizing a view. As a switch that is working in all cases by using a shortcut, it is more efficient than switching tabs of properties editor.
I did not just talked about multires modifier.
I quoted Remesh and Decimate than are common if you are using dyntopo.
It is also common when using dyntopo to make a boolean operation between 2 sculpted meshes.
I could have talk about skin modifier to create base shape and armature modifier to pose it.
Of course, it is often one modifier at a time and it does not need a lot of space.
But who said that the one that are taking the full height of screen should be for modifier. It should be for brushes. It is the one under outliner that should be for modifiers.
But if Modeling workspace is next to Sculpting workspace and user just have to press Ctrl Page up / Ctrl Page Down to see its modifiers, we don’t need 2 properties editor. We don’t outliner either.