What are your thoughts on a future where code is represented as a structured model, rather than text? Do you think that AI-powered coding assistants benefit from that?

+ for

It’s important to realize that “modern “AI” doesn’t understand human level meanings any better today (in many cases: worse!). So it is not going to be able to serve as much of a helper in a general coding assistant.

a b i 1 x []

Need a different reason to eat more fiber? How about microplastics? - The Seattle Times

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

A slogan that might help you get past the current fads is:

in structures, such as:

What is one thing which you cannot stop however hard you try?

i.e. “operator like things” at the nodes …

First, it’s worth noting that the “syntax recognition” phase of most compilers already does build a “structured model”, often in what used to be called a “canonical form” (an example of this might be a “pseudo-function tree” where every elementary process description is put into the same form — so both “a + b” and “for i := 1 to x do […]” are rendered as

Another canonical form could be Lisp S-expressions, etc.

People with COPD had more carbon in their lungs than smokers in study - The Washington Post

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

Most coding assistants — with or without “modern “AI” — also do reasoning and manipulation of structures.

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

Why is my older sister so mean to me as if I was her enemy?

These structures are made precisely to allow programs to “reason” about some parts of lower level meaning, and in many cases to rearrange the structure to preserve meaning but to make the eventual code that is generated more efficient.

Long ago in the 50s this was even thought of as a kind of “AI” and this association persisted into the 60s. Several Turing Awards were given for progress on this kind of “machine reasoning”.