I picked on needless complexity due to top-down design not on static typing per se.

Here's a good video highlighting the difference of approach. Well worth watching. Applies to how many Java architects would design a solution. I see the same kind of top-down approach happening in the Typescript area as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb823aqgX_0&list=PL0ydHZ1qvY...

Yes, and Clojure exists in opposition to static types. There is always core/typed, but Rich Hickey does not like static types and Clojure was not intended to be written in that way. These days, with languages like TypeScript on the rise, static types are more fashionable than ever whereas Clojure appears to not be having the same momentum. While I like my static types very much, it never hurts to try to understand both perspectives and what they offer. To sell Clojure these days, you first have to sell dynamic types.