Ah ok, I see what you're saying. It's an interesting idea.
One of the reasons that something like unified syntax is not preferred is because there are some important distinctions between runtime and comptime, and a lisp-like syntax doesn't translate well because lisp doesn't have a meaningful distinction between the two.
For example, it's desirable for some folks to have the "comptime" work (declaring types, imports, function signatures, etc) to have a purely declarative syntax. And languages like Rust use declarative syntax to express things about types, interfaces, and their constraints. Contrast that with the logic of the program which is more convenient for a programmer to express in the imperative style.
One of the reasons that something like unified syntax is not preferred is because there are some important distinctions between runtime and comptime, and a lisp-like syntax doesn't translate well because lisp doesn't have a meaningful distinction between the two.
For example, it's desirable for some folks to have the "comptime" work (declaring types, imports, function signatures, etc) to have a purely declarative syntax. And languages like Rust use declarative syntax to express things about types, interfaces, and their constraints. Contrast that with the logic of the program which is more convenient for a programmer to express in the imperative style.