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?

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”.

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.

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

Why do some people refuse to explain their actions or behavior when asked? Why do they claim to not know the reason instead of providing an explanation?

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.

a b i 1 x []

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

Corrupti suscipit aliquid odit totam.

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

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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

Why do flat Earthers exist? Why can’t I see the Sun at night? Is it because Earth is not flat?

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

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

Your Apple CarPlay is getting a big update: 3 useful features coming with iOS 26 - ZDNet

+ for

in structures, such as: