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

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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

Red Sox rookie addresses alleged false claims about father’s background - Boston Herald

in structures, such as:

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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

How do I prevent dogs from climbing on my car and scratching the bonnet, windshield, roof and sleeping on it?

a b i 1 x []

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.

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”.

What are the best mattress options for a comfortable night's sleep in Pompano Beach?

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.

+ for

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

I am interested in gang stalking tactics. How do covert agents use street theater and false narratives to torment targeted individuals?

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

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