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?

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

+ for

in structures, such as:

The #1 Underrated Vegetable with More Vitamin C Than an Orange, According to Dietitians - EatingWell

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”.

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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

Chevy Corvette ZR1 Cleanly Smokes Ferrari And Lamborghini In A Race - CarBuzz

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.

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.

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

This seed is rich in protein, magnesium, and helps grow muscle mass - Earth.com

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.

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

Atheists who said that reading the Bible made them an atheist, how? Literally there are millions of people who read the Bible daily and still believe in God. So why say that? I mean unless you want to sound smart & edgy

a b i 1 x []

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!