Does Lisp do anything more than other similar languages to help you avoid mistakes in meaning? I guess not. But it doesn’t claim to, as you say, so what’s the problem?
Lisp advocates don’t talk about something Lisp doesn’t claim to do and most other languages don’t do. Why’s that surprising?
But the main argument is that Lisp is hyperproductive if you’re an individual brain genius who’s memorized every emacs key combo. And my point is that it doesn’t matter if you can produce something fast if you can’t know if that thing actually works.
This is the traditional “static vs dynamic typing” argument but you know, a lot of new languages have new kinds of safety features going beyond “static typing”.
And of course Lisp does make unusual decisions affecting safety. Making all numbers bignums means math is more likely to be correct since it won’t overflow, but untrusted user input can pretty easily DoS you.
> But the main argument is that Lisp is hyperproductive if you’re an individual brain genius who’s memorized every emacs key combo.
I certainly haven't, though I suspect this is a bit of an exaggeration.
In reality things that are hopelessly broken and released quickly win market share all the time which is in contradiction to your statement.
The old Tony Hoare quote seems apt: "There are two methods in software design. One is to make the program so simple, there are obviously no errors. The other is to make it so complicated, there are no obvious errors."