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 []

+ for

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

NASA Spots Strange Towering Shape Breaking Through Mars’ Atmosphere - The Daily Galaxy

plus(a, b) for(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.

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

Circle IPO Is Said to Price Above Range to Raise $1.1 Billion - Bloomberg

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

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”.

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

Why are there no fossils for the 'missing link' that connects our ancestors with other species? Is this a misconception or is there another explanation?

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.

in structures, such as:

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

What exactly is the difference between a surge protector and a fuse? Can a fuse protect the electronic devices from lightning instead of surge protector?

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

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!