[wtetzner]

Clojure is a fine language, and I wrote it professionally for a few years.

However, I don't see why this would be true:

> This sort of stuff would have taken weeks of effort in a static language.

I've also written plenty of things in typed languages, and in many ways they can be faster to develop in than dynamic languages. Of course, you do need to change the way you program a bit to really take advantage of types.

I think the main advantage Clojure has over most typed languages is macros, but there is work being done to rectify even that.

[hacker_9]

I used to think this, until I used Clojure. I'm surprised you used it professionally and have that mindset, I write far less code in Clojure and get far more done. The productivity gains are amazing, especially when I can just upload new code on the fly as the program is running.

[wtetzner]

Part of the issue is maintenance. Coming back to code you haven't worked on in a while can require more time to load back into your head than a typed language. And speaking from experience [1], refactoring in a typed language also tends to go more smoothly.

> I'm surprised you used it professionally and have that mindset

I used to have your mindset when I first started working with Clojure :)

Keep in mind that not all typed languages are created equal. Clojure is still much better than Java. But I find I'm quite productive with OCaml, due in large part to the simple but powerful type system, plus the fantastic module system. OCaml does have some drawbacks compared to Clojure, but they're not related to static typing. The main disadvantages are the macro system (even the new extension point stuff is cumbersome compared to a proper macro system) and the smaller library ecosystem.

[1] I've done a lot of refactoring in Clojure, and while it wasn't terrible, types can help a lot.

[Edit] To be clear, I do think Clojure has a lot going for it, but I don't think any of it's advantages are due to being dynamically typed, and there's no reason a statically typed language can't have the same benefits.

[nickpsecurity]

It's because it's a LISP with good ecosystem. LISP is already strongly, but dynamically, typed from what I'm told. So, you get quite a bit of benefit. You could probably do the same in a statically- or gradually-typed LISP. Main difference is you'll catch a few more interface errors without tests. Also, if using specs or types, one can do automated generation of testing, enabled better static analysis, and/or improve optimization in compilers. Basically, the tools know a bit more about what you're trying to do.