This is on one hand a truism that actually adds nothing to the discussion. In achieving success, of course the business matters. Even more so the best simplifications come from understanding the business domain, not from the tools used.
---
On the other hand it's also patently false. Build a web browser in Ruby. Build an operating system in JavaScript. Build your average web app in C/C++.
The tools used have inherent limits, being optimized for certain domains and not others, can make us more productive, can lower the defect rate and can keep us happy enough to see the project released.
In my experience _some_ static FP languages can lower the defect rate, can make certain problems easier to tackle, can make the code easier to maintain and refactor and due to performance being reasonable, they tend to be more general purpose than other languages — this trait being a consequence of static typing, making performance good enough, coupled with the languages themselves still being high level enough.
---
> "learning Lisp at work"
Ah, I see the problem ... many of you thought Lisp is some sort of secret sauce. It isn't, it never was, Lisp is a freaking mess.
The real problem in our industry is not applying the scientific method for advancing it. We thus rely on fashion and salesmen to sell us magic pills.