Stronger foundation (as to mean better tested), less accidental complexity of reinventing everything, transferability of knowledge, easier onboarding and review of changes.

Your argument is a mirror of the snark question "why don't LLMs write in assembly?" for those not looking at the output at all.

The point is the same as in pre-LLM.

If anything, LLMs make it easier to choose from a broad set of options. The tradeoffs are the same as pre-LLM days, but the learning curve is more favorable.

Professional diligence, perhaps? A desire to not be blindly led into the kind of narrow, often first-party stack which is so often proposed by Claude Code?

With all due respect, not everyone is afflicted with the lack of care sufficient to allow them to launch vibe coded apps as low quality as https://podnami.com. Considered technology choices are one such aspect of the practice of caring about what you're building.

Statically typed languages with compiler hints are the absolute best languages for LLM's to work with. Successful compilation is incredible feedback, and it basically just means that there is a higher chance that the feature is in a complete and working state at the end of each agent iteration.

I haven't tried it, but Elm might be a really good fit for LLMs, because it forbids taking shortcuts.

Sorry buddy this is hacker news, you probably meant to enter your prompt here --> claude.ai