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?

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

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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

Are Indian girls awesome in bed? Do they taste different than our American girls? Does anyone has experience with both American and Indian girls?

a b i 1 x []

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

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

Make-A-Wish helps Tacoma cancer patient fulfill dream of giving back to fellow children - KOMO

in structures, such as:

+ for

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.

8 signs you're mentally stronger than 95% of people, according to psychology - VegOut

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

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.

4 'Healthy' Trends That Need to Stop Now, According to a Dietitian - EatingWell

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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”.