I prefer being forced to keep my program simple by making complexity intolerable over encapsulating it. Your preference may differ.
I find I have to refactor my dynamically typed programs less frequently than my statically typed ones. Your mileage may vary.
No amount of type safety will prove my game is fun, or that my user can understand the UI. I want fast iteration times, since I can’t wait on the compiler to test a new enemy behavior or GUI layout.
No, but what it can ensure to some extent is that your game runs, and doesn't crash randomly. If the game crashes constantly, no one is going to play it no matter how fun it is.
That's the keyword here. Maybe I'm missing critical data, but I've never perceived the reduction in defect from Clojure to Haskell. I've looked for studies on it, and they all point to either no difference or incredibly close. Never I've been shown a case where the reduction in defects would have an impact on the business I work for. Enterprise software is a domain that isn't that sensitive to defect. Anything less then 5% difference would go unnoticed, and affect in no way sales.
My conclusion, it comes down to your own enjoyment. Which one do you have more fun using and are the most productive in, that's the one you should be using.
I allow muself to change my mind if Haskell really proves to be 10% to 30% or more lower defect, maybe in a later version, with some GHC extension, maybe liquid haskell, I'm not closing my mind to it if it happens I'll be there.
Clojure is compiled, isn't it?