I appreciate its terseness as well, but it's a doubled-edged sword. Also, it's not clear to me why you are citing homographs as a defense. To me, it seems that homographs are a misfeature of natural language, resulting from the fact that natural languages are the product of clumsy evolution and combination over the course of eons. Clearly it would be better if languages didn't have homographs as it makes life more difficult needlessly. Yes, we can handle them, but they don't buy us anything, so why should we use that kind of thing as an argument when deliberately designing artificial languages?