[ComNik]

That was not the intension behind my comment at all. I rely on type systems a lot, myself.

I was trying to note that Clojure, as a dynamic language, is making a (to my eyes) very interesting choice, of doubling down on these dynamic methods of verification. For some uses, I can see this as the better choice, for others it isn't and won't be.

[pklausler]

Sure, and I can't fault anyone for wanting less dangerous dynamic languages. But to me it's kind of like wanting less dangerous cigarettes.

[KingMob]

As I commented elsewhere, Clojure very deliberately adopts the stance that type systems like Haskell's are valuable but heavyweight, and chose development speed and concision over types.

In my own work, I chose Clojure because it mirrored my experiences: that type systems weren't worth the trade-offs for me and my field.

Would I prefer stronger typing in different domains (longer project times available, greater consequences of failure like medical devices, etc.)? Sure, and I have in the past. But it's not the case that dynamic languages are always the incorrect choice, like smoking cigarettes.

[stuarthalloway]

Or like leaving the house without a suit of plate mail.

[pron]

When you prove that a language like Clojure (untyped, but with dispatch that is no more dynamic than that of many modern typed languages) combined with a construct like specs is significantly less safe than any typed language, then you can make that statement. It's not like untyped and typed are two binary categories; otherwise, I could say that wanting less dangerous typed languages as opposed to formal tools are just like wanting less dangerous cigarettes. These ideas exist on a spectrum.