OOPs original premise is homoiconicity? Really?

I'm pretty sure what was meant by 'code is data' is that a lot of OOP training encourages you to "bundle the code and the data in an object". People take that to heart, and...bundle code and data into objects. Whether or not those functions and that data really belong in the same object is an afterthought, if considered at all.

I'm not sure anyone really knows what OOP's original premise is.

There are various legends, and they mostly conflict with each other.

It feels a bit like a rhetorical device to discuss OOP in any context other than the version of Java that's currently in widest usage.

It was whatever Simula and then Smalltalk's goals were.

I presume "code and data are really the same thing" is intended to refer to way that OOP binds code and data together.

I'm not sure "code is data" necessarily means "homoiconicity", but it could mean "first-class functions" (or at least that's what I think of when I hear the phrase; maybe I'm wrong); however, I'm not familiar with anyone who argues that these are fundamental OOP features (perhaps Smalltalk had first class functions, but for a very long time the most popular flavors of OOP did not).

yes,

Homoiconicity is about having the same syntax for both structure and data.

First class functions means there is no conversion, again at syntax level, between a function and a value.

Mainstream languages all have a way to see code as data, it's function pointer in C, delegate and lambda in C# and first class functions in Python or JavaScript.

I understand the differences between homoiconicity and first class functions and even that modern languages often support them, but that support is typically an artifact of a functional (and not OOP) influence with the exception of function pointers in C whose origins im not sure about except that it doesn’t come from OOP. The point is that despite the confusion about “what does OOP mean, really”, there are no prominent arguments that suggest that homoiconicity or first class functions are defining characteristics.

I think both conceptions are important. On one hand, some code is naturally related to certain data and hence we should accordingly design the program. On the other hand, complex and distributed programs have code which must be dynamically bound to different data. OOP focuses on only one aspect but does it very well. How to adequately support the opposite aspect is not clear. At least there are many ways how this can be done.

This reads like a rejection of von Neumann architectures. I don't think this is quite right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_architecture