This is exceptionally useful advice, and precisely the way we should be talking about how to engage with LLMs when coding. That said, I take issue with "Use St

This is exceptionally useful advice, and precisely the way we should be talking about how to engage with LLMs when coding. That said, I take issue with "Use Static Types". I've actually had more success with Claude Code using Clojure than I have Typescript (the other thing I tried.) Clojure emphasizes small, pure functions, to a high degree. Whereas (sometimes) fully understanding a strong type might involve reading several files. If I'm really good with my prompting to make sure that I have good example data for the entity types at each boundary point, it feels like it does a better job. My intuition is that LLMs are fundamentally context-based, so they are naturally suited to an emphasis on functions over pure data, vs requiring understanding of a larger type/class hierarchy to perform well. But it took me a while to figure out how to build these prompts and agent rules. A LLM programming in a dynamic language without a human supervising the high-level code structure and data model is a recipe for disaster.