>>20
Look,
Consider
(+ 3 x)
I know almost nothing about it. I don't know if a given compiler will accept it, that depends on the compiler. I have no idea what kind of machine code that compiler will produce.
Making some assumptions (e.g. some kind of Lisp reader and compiler (or interpreter) and probably a million more tacit assumptions) I can say that
+ is a "function", I can say that
x is a variable that can be "bound", I can say that 3 represents something like a number (but really, not really).
Even with these assumptions I have no idea what this program does. I do not know how
+ is defined. For all I know it could sort lists. I have no idea what
x is bound to, it could be a string.
There is no way whatsoever to tell what
(+ 3 x) means without more assumptions, without some sort of contextual information.
It is impossible.
Now, in the same way I actually, really, truly do know many things about
+,
3 and
x in Common Lisp, my Common Lisp implementation, the machine it runs on, and the particular part of program text in my program it appears (due to the huge amounts of contextual information I have absorbed) I can understand
(+ 3 x).
This is no harder or easier for me to understand than the fact that within the body of
(aif ... ) the vairable
it will be bound to the first form evaluated.
It requires a very similar amount of contextual information to understand when reading the program. It requires the same amount of reasoning, and it requires the same amount of checking to make sure I understand what it really means.
No amount of meme repetition by you or anyone else can change these facts.