Perhaps the use of coding agents may have encouraged this behavior, but it is perfectly possible to do the opposite with agents as well — for instance, to use agents to make it easier to set up and maintain a good testing scaffold for TUI stuff, a comprehensive test suite top to bottom, in a way maintainers may not have had the time/energy/interest to do before, or to rewrite in a faster and more resource efficient language that you may find more verbose, be less familiar with, or find annoying to write — and nothing is forcing them to release as often as they are, instead of just having a high commit velocity. I've personally found AIs to be just as good at Go or Rust as TypeScript, perhaps better, as well, so I don't think there was anything forcing them to go with TypeScript. I think they're just somewhat irresponsible devs.

> I think they're just somewhat irresponsible devs.

Before coding agents it took quite a lot more experience before most people could develop and ship a successful product. The average years of experience of both core team and contributors was higher and this reflected in product and architecture choices that really have an impact, especially on non-functional requirements.

They could have had better design and architecture in this project if they had asked the AI for more help with it, but they did not even know what to ask or how to validate the responses.

Of course, lots of devs with more years of experience would do just as badly or worse. What we are seeing here though is a filter removed that means a lot of projects now are the first real product everyone the team has ever developed.