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?

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.

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

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

Why do Trump supporters like Andrew and Tristan Tate?

+ for

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

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

How is sex with a woman for gay men?

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

in structures, such as:

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”.

Why would the state lie about the Earth's shape? We know that it's flat, but why do they lie and tell us that it is a sphere?

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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

a b i 1 x []

On Which Part of the Body Might One Wear Winklepickers? - Slate Magazine

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.

/ \ and ⁄ / | \