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?

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

+ for

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

Broadcom’s AI Bonanza Has Limits - WSJ

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

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.

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

Do you think President-Elect Donald Trump won the presidency fair and square, or do you think the GOP resorted to blatant unlawful practices to tilt the election?

a b i 1 x []

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

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

Trump always acts like he was forced to be president, that he was chosen by God. Why do we put up with this? This maniac can't focus and get his mind off of being asskissed like an emperor.

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

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.

Weird-shaped notebooks make me want to write again - The Verge

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.