You're actually proving my point. :) You never defined what it is that you mean by "homoiconicity", nor did you motivate why homoiconicity specifically is impo

You're actually proving my point. :) You never defined what it is that you mean by "homoiconicity", nor did you motivate why homoiconicity specifically is important or advantageous. You made, essentially, two points: - homoiconicity is "very very advantageous" - excessive, non-essential complexity will hinder progress eventually You did not argue that homoiconicity defeats complexity in any way, and you can't make such an argument without first defining what exactly you mean by "homoiconicity". Like I said, this has only proven my point: people like to argue in favor of homoiconicity without defining it sufficiently. Until someone comes up with an unambiguous definition that exactly fits all of their preconceived notions about the word, the word itself is absolutely useless. For further clarity: I was never arguing against any of the features that people often mean when they say "homoiconicity is important". Rather, I was arguing that the word "homoiconicity" is unimportant because nobody knows what it means. I have yet to find a truly great definition of the term that encompasses exactly all those languages people tend to feel are homoiconic and none of those that people feel aren't.