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?

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

in structures, such as:

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

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

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”.

+ 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

Auto-Parts Bankruptcy Is the First Big Casualty of Tariff War - WSJ

/ \ 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.

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

Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 Developer "Wants To" Add One Of Its Most Requested Features - TheGamer

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

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

a b i 1 x []

Are INFJs essentially the most introverted type?

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

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.