You're right that Haskell has different things that make it great, but you're wrong about the "lost" part of it. Lisp has never tried to be what you're describi

You're right that Haskell has different things that make it great, but you're wrong about the "lost" part of it. Lisp has never tried to be what you're describing outside of the occasional research project or sidecar optimizer. What Lisp has that very few other languages have is the confusingly named "homoiconicicity." Lisp data and lisp code are, by and large, the same thing. As such, it's quite easy to write compiler extensions ad hoc for every given usecase. This is different from Haskell's babel of language extensions, in that these extensions tend to be razor thin and custom fit syntactic abstractions that provide an opportunity for code reuse or performancs optimization with less leaking of underlying structure. I've always called it "meta-syntactic" programming. Lisp sits off in its own little world, and probably has more akin to Forth and Factor than Haskell.