>Makes me wonder why zig announced the strict LLM rule recently.

I guess there are 2 philosophies in software development: move fast and break things and move at a pace that guarantees everything is rock solid.

Most commercial software, Anthropic included is taking the former path, while most infrastructure teams are taking the later.

I guess Linux and FreeBSD kernels are also not accepting LLM based contributions yet.

> I guess Linux and FreeBSD kernels are also not accepting LLM based contributions yet.

Both appear to be[1][2]. FreeBSD doesn't have a formal policy yet, but they appear to be leaning towards admitting some degree of LLM contribution.

[1]: https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html

[2]: https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/will-freebsd-adopt-a-no-a...

> I guess Linux and FreeBSD kernels are also not accepting LLM based contributions yet.

PostgreSQL, a famously slow and rock solid project, accepts LLM-based contributions. But they are held to the same high standard, if you cannot explain the patch you submitted it likely get rejected.

> move fast and break things and move at a pace that guarantees everything is rock solid.

Zig is famous for taking the former path! Anyone using Zig for a few years knows every release breaks things, and they are still making huge changes which I would classify as “moving fast”, like the recent IO changes!