[diggan]

> I think this is where functional style and strong types come in handy: they make it harder to write bad code that looks innocent.

I'm a proponent of functional programming in general, but I don't think neither types (of any "strength") nor functional programming makes it easier or harder to write bad code. Sure, types might help avoid easy syntax errors, but can also give the developer false confidence with "if it compiles it works :shrug:". Instruct the LLM to figure out the solution until it compiles, and you'll get the same false confidence, if there is nothing else asserting the correct behavior, not just the syntax.

> in Python/JS/Ruby this would just run

I'm not sure how well versed with dynamic languages you are, especially when writing code for others, but you'll in 99% cases cover at the very least all the happy paths with unit tests, and if you're planning on putting it in a production environment, you'll also do the "sad" paths. Using LLMs or not shouldn't change that very basic requirement.