For having to deal with at least 5 different package managers daily (pacman, yum, apk, prt-utils, apt from time to time), I must say that even if you can get used to all of these, some are just easier to deal with when you need to do some programming.
Pacman is a good one. It's fast, sync with repos on demand and install both libs and headers for each libraries. Yum is a slow bitch, avoid it at all costs. Seriously. apt* are ok. My only griefs against it is that PPAs are not as easy as it could be (for example with yum, you can install the biggest repos via yum itself, which is probably the only nice thing about yum). Apk is nice too, and it has this neat --simulate feature, which will tell you what each upgrade will do. But if you plan to do some programming, it could quickly cluter your package base as every package is split in 3: <pkg>, <pkg>-dev (for headers) and <pkg>-doc (for manpages). So you might have to install 3 packages instead of one each time. Finally, prt-utils. It's pretty nice when you need obscure libs or when you have specific needs, because it lets you build your packages by hand in a quick & easy way. The drawbacks being that the package base is way smaller than its concurrents and compiles everything from source. So you migh loose simplicity in favor to flexibility.

TL;DR: you can get used to each, but they all win on a specific field:

• pacman - fast
  
• yum - uuh.. can't think of any advantage right now
  
• apt - rock solid / big package base
  
• apk - light
  
• prt-utils - flexible