What I said is that conversation isn&#x27;t code. Not a commutative statement!<p>That is, you seemed to be arguing that there was redundancy in my comment, similar to what I called busywork and noise in code. An interesting point, but my comment was conversation—not code—so it struck me as a non sequitur.<p>Your comment hints at an insight into why we make code overcomplicated. But the superfluous complexity I&#x27;m talking about rarely strikes me as nuance, i.e. valuable enhancement for humans. It&#x27;s mostly boilerplate to satisfy machines. It&#x27;s no accident that &quot;Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute&quot; is a line that came out of the Lisp mentality.