The more constraining the language, the better. For example, languages with strong static typing are better for agents because they reject entire classes of errors. This is why Rust is a particularly good target for coding agents. Its hard to write data races, draw null pointer exceptions, access freed memory, double free memory, etc. Not only that, but the feedback loop becomes shorter because the error happens in the compiler and not when that code path gets run (which may never happen because its so hard to write comprehensive tests). This helps correct the stochastic nature of agents and bring them back on track when they wander.

This is the antithesis of the idea that more powerful languages are better but it makes sense. For humans, it costs a lot for the language to get in the way all the time. Yes, a constraining language prevents you from writing errors but it also interrupts flow, forces you to describe processes that are meaningless at the application level, and usually is more verbose. But for an agent, the marginal cost of an additional line of code is less. Both the literal cost but also the opportunity cost.

Its not that Rust is a good or bad language per se, its just that agents don't care about ergonomics while humans do. And when you don't have to care about ergonomics this lets you push the tradeoffs way outside the range that would be even remotely acceptable for us. The flip side is that so far, we are in the mix so you can't go all the way to constraints... not that I can imagine what that would look like.