I used it for a while, when Fedora 24 refused to work reliably on my 4k laptop (it worked under 23, and now works again under 25). It was OK. I mean, it's an amazing feat of engineering, but there's a ton of little (and not so little) quirks that made it painful.
Sharing files across the two systems was (maybe still is?) disastrous. I've heard of total Linux system corruption, but I personally had files disappear (they were checked into a remote git repo, so no loss, except for recent changes). It's covered in the docs, but I didn't grok what they were saying and the real gravity of it. Since I was using Windows native Atom for my editor, this was cumbersome.
But, most things work about how you'd expect them to. I was able to install the software I work on (which runs as root, and pokes at everything on the system), and it worked as I expected it to. I didn't even have to tweak it.
I'm still more comfortable and productive in Linux, so I'm happy to have my Linux partition running well again. I also prefer Fedora to Ubuntu, so that's a win for running Linux natively. But, if I liked developing in, say, Visual Studio, and was deploying my software to Linux servers or working on cross-platform desktop apps, having the local Linux would be a big win. Even with the forced separation of filesystems, it's still more transparent than a Vagrant managed VirtualBox, or something.
Also worth noting: Windows is remarkably better as a development environment than the last time I had to develop on a Windows machine (about 10 years ago, one of my jobs included building cross-platform software packages). The quality of tools available is very high. There are good terminals, all of the languages I use have good installers available. Even if Linux weren't there, it's much less painful to develop on Windows than it used to be. (Still painful, and I still had a huge variety of headaches, mostly due to absolutely shitty package management on Windows.)