> You're declaring a conclusion that goes against the outcomes of several pages of heavy argument. When you do this, it's customary to attempt to support your p

> You're declaring a conclusion that goes against the outcomes of several pages of heavy argument. When you do this, it's customary to attempt to support your position with arguments. :) The argument is the conclusion from the bottom of the page, which I quoted: much ado about nothing. Then there's a long discussion about how machine code is not homoiconic, which I absolutely disagree with. In von Neumann architecture, and modern CPUs data == code, otherwise you couldn't make a JIT compiler.