Sure, my example isn't tied to static-typing but static-typing is especially helpful any time you're workin with combinators/transformations at a distance. But also, statically-typed languages like the two I brought up tend to be in most need of a nice validation/codec/transformation library because you can't simply procrastinate establishing your domain models like you can in dynamically-typed languages. And this is the sort of pain that leads people to say that dynamically-typed languages are more accommodating here.

Though I will have to defend Clojure from your last paragraph. I don't think there has been a lisp that has done so much for lisps than Clojure. For example, until I used Clojure, other lisps were just like any other dynamically-typed, mutation-heavy language. The idea of just shuttling around data and transformations on that data is something that fundamentally changed my approach to writing software.

I can certainly come up with worse things to say about Clojure. I kinda grew out of dynamic-typing, for one. And this is never more obvious than if you've ever read a large or complex Clojure codebase while dying to just know what the underlying Java types are. And you're so desperate that you get excited when you see a single ^ChannelHandler type-hint.