Python and JS succeeded long before they had a static type system. Many people still use Python and JS today without type annotations. Elixir is not statically typed either and seems to be doing fine.
I like static typing and agree that it will eventually "win", but I really don't see where you're coming from here.
> I know it's trying very hard to catch up to statically typed languages now by retrofitting some type system
Describing the Clojure dev team as "trying very hard to catch up to statically typed languages by retrofitting some type system" because they work on spec is pushing a narrative that I doubt they'd agree with, both regarding spec's goals and its rhythm of development.
I'm not thinking highly of any narrative that the Clojure dev team believes. It is the pièce de résistance of the new "new" functional programming cult, which is in fact very old school.
Even just parroting some of the memes from this thread like "static types only prevent 2% of bugs" and "you can replace 12 developers with 3 amazing (italics) Clojure developers" and "a Clojure developer can replace any kind of developer!" means you don't have to make up absurd viewpoints to argue the contrary. These trends are old as time and completely nonsensical.
I like static typing and agree that it will eventually "win", but I really don't see where you're coming from here.
> I know it's trying very hard to catch up to statically typed languages now by retrofitting some type system
What makes you say that?