What you appear to be saying is that people who like type systems must be ignorant because with experience you suspect they would think differently.
This seems to me to be extremely uncharitable point of view.
But let's roll with it.
I advocate type systems.
I've also worked in several non-trivial projects in lua. Several non-trivial projects in python. Several trivial projects in common lisp. Several trivial projects in erlang.
Additional I've worked in a non trivial project in ruby for several months. And one non trivial project in node for a year. Both of these in a professional 8 hours a day capacity.
I still advocate type systems. More so after working in dynamic languages.
"Type system" is being used here to mean "static type checking" while CLisp has some facilities for this they are implementation-specified and not commonly used. (Even its dynamic typing checking is not commonly used.)
There are type hints that you can give the compiler, but I believe that's only useful for generating faster assembly. Also you can get compile time warnings from macros, but that's much closer in nature to getting a parse error (something pretty much every language does that I'm aware of static or dynamically typed).
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there exists a common lisp typing extension that someone made with macros (after all racket has something like that iirc), however if it exists I didn't use it regardless.
This seems to me to be extremely uncharitable point of view.
But let's roll with it.
I advocate type systems.
I've also worked in several non-trivial projects in lua. Several non-trivial projects in python. Several trivial projects in common lisp. Several trivial projects in erlang.
Additional I've worked in a non trivial project in ruby for several months. And one non trivial project in node for a year. Both of these in a professional 8 hours a day capacity.
I still advocate type systems. More so after working in dynamic languages.