Try to apply first principles to LLM coding:

* Chances are that fewer people (maybe even none) will look at the code when it's LLM-generated

* Amount of code being written isn't all that critical anymore

* Keeping patches small isn't that big of a deal anymore (because it's now the LLM's job to maintain it, not the human's)

All of this implies: boilerplate isn't a good reason to avoid a language anymore. (I hate this conclusion, because I hate boilerplate).

Then the question is: what kind of language can you use that buys safety with boilerplate? Probably a statically typed one, possibly with lots of asserts... Eiffel? I don't know if there's enough Eiffel code around the Internet to train LLMs, so maybe a more popular one would be better.

Maybe Java or C#? Haskell? OCaml?

The article suggests golang, and I think there are use cases where golang would be a good candidate.

It would be quite interesting to run an experiment: give separate instances of the same LLM coding agent the task to implement a specific application, and use different languages. Then compare quality, code size, runtime performance and token cost. Ideal would be a multi-stage development that better simulates a real development workflow (bug reports and new feature requests come in over time).