Soon, hopefully, we will have evidence based analysis of those programming languages best suited for LLM authoring. Fwiw I doubt that CL will make the cut - but happy to be proven wrong. Obviously a large factor remains the facility of the human driver for a particular language.

Until then, I subscribe to the view that strong types fit LLM coding well since LLMs are prone to make silly mistakes when they patch together code examples in dynamic languages.

[Disclosure, my new language https://bil-lang.org aims to add “strong typing” around parallel programming to help weed out deadlock conditions.]