The problem with Lisps is that generally speaking, they're all interpeted, which means type errors are discovered at runtime. Which sucks for maintenance.
Most implementations of Common Lisp have ahead of time compilation, at least as an option, but also have the compiler, or sometimes a different compiler or an interpreter available at runtime. Clojure is also typically AOT-compiled to JVM bytecode.
Did you mean that Lisps are dynamically-typed? That's true, and whether it's mostly good or mostly bad is a religious topic that almost certainly lacks one true answer. My own take on it is that I program very interactively and static typing feels like an impediment to that most of the time. Furthermore, type errors are usually a small subset of the possible errors and many static type systems allow any type to be null anyway, drastically reducing the benefit.
Did you mean that Lisps are dynamically-typed? That's true, and whether it's mostly good or mostly bad is a religious topic that almost certainly lacks one true answer. My own take on it is that I program very interactively and static typing feels like an impediment to that most of the time. Furthermore, type errors are usually a small subset of the possible errors and many static type systems allow any type to be null anyway, drastically reducing the benefit.