Hm. Homoiconicity is not a well-defined term (see, for example, Shriram Krishnamurthi's thoughts [0][1]), but even skimming over that fact, it is a syntactic property, while the quoted line is about semantics. Switching your language to Lisp (or one of its descendents) doesn't gain you anything semantically.

[0] Shriram is an original member of the Racket project, so he's been working in the Lisp-like domain for at least 30 years and, specifically, he works in an offshoot of Lisp that is particularly concerned with questions of syntax. I think this establishes him as a reasonable citation for this topic.

[1] https://parentheticallyspeaking.org/articles/bicameral-not-h...

The question then is how they plan to avoid The Lisp Curse (in my words, language giving you too much power makes you do weird things, and you attract people to like to use things a tad too powerful / generic, and you end up with an unproductive culture).

I can't view the site (Org blocks github for reasons) but I suspect this would be a lot like forth if forth weren't so stack focused

> Homoiconicity anyone?

I'm just leaving this here for anyone interested, seems relevant: https://github.com/replikativ/ansatz

Ansatz is a verified programming library for Clojure built on the Calculus of Inductive Constructions (CIC) — the same type theory that powers Lean 4.

I came here to comment "We already have Lisp."