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?

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

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.

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

Craig Breslow Discusses Red Sox’ Struggles, Future Plans - MLB Trade Rumors

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.

+ for

a b i 1 x []

My boss called me on a Saturday to let me know he that due to financial reasons, I was no longer needed effective immediatley. 3 days later, he sends me a text asking about work issues. How do I respond?

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

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

How can we become the best humans? How can we trust each other?

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

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”.

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

If there exists a “New York of Australia”, is it Sydney or Melbourne?

in structures, such as:

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