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?

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

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.

+ for

I gave him everything. He said he loved me. Why?

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

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

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.

You guys are talking about having sex with dogs. I heard a news man was trying to have sex with a female dog and got stuck inside. Is that possible? How does it feel inside a dog’s vagina?

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”.

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

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

3 iconic Disney World attractions closing for ‘largest expansion’ in history of Magic Kingdom - AL.com

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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

US energy groups spend record sums on power plants to feed data centres - Financial Times

in structures, such as:

a b i 1 x []