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?

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

a b i 1 x []

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

WWE WrestleMania 42 Announced for Las Vegas After Relocation from New Orleans - Bleacher Report

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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.

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

Practice Report: Takeaways From Start of Second Week of OTAs - Baltimore Ravens

in structures, such as:

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

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”.

Call of Duty plagued with issues after Season 4 launch - Windows Central

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.

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

You found a love potion, and your friend tried to use it on an attractive popular girl, but he accidentally dropped it on the neighbors dog. Now the dog won't stop following him. How would you help him?

+ for

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