I wish Common Lisp had integrated type declarations with TYPEP and CHECK-TYPE, instead of punting with "consequences are undefined if the value of the declared variable is not of the declared type," i.e., sucks to be you.
For example, type declarations can enable performance optimizations, compiletime type checking, runtime type checking, IDE autocompletion, etc. Or they can be ignored, if compiler simplicity is more valued. All these things have engineering tradeoffs. For example, runtime checks may have runtime costs at odds with performance optimization
There might be higher-value improvements to Common Lisp, if higher quality code is desired
And perhaps I wouldn't get your answer, I mean is there something fundamentally inadequate in the way SBCL declares types? I think there is a phrase for it in CS theory.
First of all, op was talking about strongly typed languages. Asking are they good as statically typed ones like Rust and OCaml is raising the goal posts quite a bit.
Second of all, SBCL can indeed have a subsection of its code expressed in OCaml-like static types, see
You simply don't have the problem of batch style programming where you have written a bunch of code and now you want to know if it works so you run a lot of static analysis on it beforehand because running it and getting it to the point and state that is relevant costs time.
In CL you don't end up with lots of code that has never been run. You have constantly run it during development and are much more confident about its behavior. So just having this interactive way of programming already leads to much more reliable software. It is not a replacement for static analysis or unit testing of course but another pillar to help you write more correct software.