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?

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

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

+ for

Mayor Bass announces curfew for DTLA amid ongoing anti-ICE protests - ABC7 Los Angeles

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

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

a b i 1 x []

‘The market is as clueless as the Fed’: Why this trader says stocks could continue to do well for months - MarketWatch

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

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.

in structures, such as:

Part toy, part fashion, the arrival of the viral Labubu was a long time in the making - AP News

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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.

What can I do to deal with disrespectful children?

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.