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?

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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.

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

'Really excited about this group': 5 takeaways from Seahawks minicamp - The Seattle Times

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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

a b i 1 x []

Google, Scale AI's largest customer, plans split after Meta deal, sources say - CNBC

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

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

+ for

AMD once again first to top GPU clock charts with RX 9060 XT delivering 3.1 GHz - VideoCardz.com

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.

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”.

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

8 Things Knee Doctors Say You Should Never, Ever Do - HuffPost

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

in structures, such as: