I use Clojure in the large, and the lack of static typing isn't something I miss. FWIW, spec allows you make similar guarantees if you use it (technically more, since you can express more than HM type systems).
I think the static/dynamic divide speaks to deep divisions in programmer personalities, but if you're open to suggestion, I would put it like this: As Haskell/OCaML are to static langs like Java, Clojure is to dynamic langs like Python/Javascript.
Clojure has a deep vein of pragmatic simplicity throughout its core libraries and community that I think does more for taming large-scale development than static typing does, but that just my $.02.
I think the static/dynamic divide speaks to deep divisions in programmer personalities, but if you're open to suggestion, I would put it like this: As Haskell/OCaML are to static langs like Java, Clojure is to dynamic langs like Python/Javascript.
Clojure has a deep vein of pragmatic simplicity throughout its core libraries and community that I think does more for taming large-scale development than static typing does, but that just my $.02.