In all fairness the dynamic nature of LISP is an advantage for the people using it. Yes you can talk about having bombs in production that would otherwise have been caught by the compiler, but unless you have a really expressive type system, like Haskell, then it's not going to help you much. If you're into static type safety, than Go is a really poor choice.
And this is one of my problems with it. Either a language is statically type safe, or it is dynamic. You can then fully embrace the mentality of those languages.
However Go is in the league of languages created to be popular with the average Joe and just like Java before it, it's neither here nor there.
A zip code is a string even though it looks like a number.
Likewise C/Java/Go "types" are tags even though they look like types. Real types are numbers that obey type algebra, which C/Java/Go have no idea exists.
And this is one of my problems with it. Either a language is statically type safe, or it is dynamic. You can then fully embrace the mentality of those languages.
However Go is in the league of languages created to be popular with the average Joe and just like Java before it, it's neither here nor there.