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?

a b i 1 x []

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

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.

Long-dead satellite emits strong radio signal, puzzling astronomers - CNN

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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 ⁄ / | \

Does any other guys get turned on by dick pic makes you lick lips because you what to suck?

+ for

in structures, such as:

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

Marvel Tōkon Fighting Souls dev Arc System Works has its own ‘direct’ coming - Polygon

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.

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

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

From the Desk of AD Laird Veatch: Mizzou Athletics Embarks on New Era With ‘Will to Win’ - University of Missouri Athletics

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

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!