Lots of factors IMO. There are lots of linters and validation tools that give you a lot of bang for your buck without much buy-in. Typed Clojure OTOH needs a lot more babysitting. The features you mention are also in their infancy as they were introduced recently. TC docs are dead, as you can see below. Any time I have goes towards the core type checker instead of the UX (until very recently). Certainly does not go towards marketing any more (I used to hype people up with crowdfunding, but now I just do whatever I have time for).

IMO combining functional style + contracts + unit/generative testing + linting (kondo/eastwood) gives similar benefits (probably way more) than Typed Clojure, for way less effort. There's not a huge demand for much more precision than that stack IMO, beyond "improving error messages". so why bother looking for something more complex in the first place?

those that try Typed Clojure out usually find it's half-finished. because it is. insane how much work as gone into a half-finished project xD it's probably equivalent to the state of typescript in 2015 or something, but without backdoors to get around the awkwardness of the unfinished parts of the type system.

oh and of course without commercial backing xD

@ambrosebs is the current typedclojure maintainer/dev, but he's not on slack much. maybe leave a note on the typedclojure github?

That repo says this is the most active place for discussions -- I looked at the mailing list and Zulip (also both linked from that repo) and they seem almost abandoned. I'll create an issue there and see if Ambrose responds...

https://github.com/typedclojure/typedclojure/issues/85

@U04V70XH6 @UEENNMX0T thanks for coordinating and executing this, I couldn't spare more than an emoji 🙂