I'm a big fan of lisps, and haven't played sufficiently with rust to have an opinion -- but I will note that the benefits of a sophisticated type system is qualitatively different from, say, the statically-typed environment of C or Objective-C. The comparison I make when thinking about CL is something like Haskell or Elm, which /do/ have that feel of "if it compiles, it works". Without that, I do have the feeling of working without a safety-net that pushes against that sense of freedom that dynamically-typed languages like CL otherwise offer.
(Obligatory mention here of Coalton, which is an experiment in creating that sense of security within a CL paradigm: https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton )
I've never managed to achieve that (the comparable sense of security), which may be on me.
Out of interest, have you worked in one of these typed languages -- Haskell, Elm, maybe OCaml (haven't tried it), Idris, Rust? I think they feel very different in this axis compared to C/C++/Objective-C/Java. Not necessarily better (I am still reminded of the term "bondage-and-discipline language" from the Jargon File[1]), but different.
(Obligatory mention here of Coalton, which is an experiment in creating that sense of security within a CL paradigm: https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton )