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?

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

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

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

Chicago Bears offense has 94-yard TD drive in 2 minute drill at minicamp - Windy City Gridiron

+ for

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

Anne Wojcicki’s nonprofit reaches deal to acquire 23andMe - TechCrunch

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.

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

What do you think about other people's K-pop opinions?

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

in structures, such as:

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

Does the rest of the world see America as a joke now that Trump is president again?

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 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”.