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?

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

in structures, such as:

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

What happened to The Simpsons deleted onscreen footage?

+ 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.

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

50 Cent Pledges to Prevent a Trump Pardon for Sean Combs: ‘I’m Gonna Reach Out’ - Rolling Stone

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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

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”.

Write something which is just the opposite of you.

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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

a b i 1 x []

Monday Leaderboard: Keegan Bradley has a Ryder Cup conundrum of his own making - Yahoo Sports

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.

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