I've found in my (admittedly limited) use of LLMs that they're great for writing code if I don't forsee a need to review it myself either, but if I'm going to be editing the code myself later I need to be the one writing it. Also LLMs are bad at design.

It has a battle mode nowadays (and has for several versions now). Somewhat more recently, they added support for network multiplayer in version 1.0. I recommend you take another look and see how much it's improved if you're still interested.

Also, the engine has gotten a lot fancier, and there are new tracks that take advantage of the engine capabilities pretty well.

What about Emacs? That's the usecase I care about. Until I can get Emacs to manage my Wayland windows ala EXWM, I'm sticking to X.

Oh, reka looks interesting. Thanks for linking it. I don't disagree with you about dynamic modules, I just think that EWM's architecture shouldn't be necessary. (In which I think we agree?)

That's not the same thing. It's way easier to write an X11 window manager than to write a Wayland compositor, even with something like wlroots, because the window manager can speak the same protocol that clients speak, and it runs as a separate process.

As a concrete example, Emacs' EXWM package works by implementing an X11 client library in Emacs Lisp, then using it to talk to the X server (which is a separate process, so this works fine) and telling it how to position windows.

Whereas on Wayland, this is not possible without re-implementing a standalone compositor process, because otherwise architecturally it doesn't work. Emacs can't both do the drawing and be drawn.