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

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

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

Qui omnis et eius rerum et dignissimos vel.

in structures, such as:

a b i 1 x []

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.

Is Matt Gaetz qualified to be Attorney General of the United States?

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.

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

Boy, 8, dies hours after complaining of headache when infection spread to brain - The US Sun

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.

+ for

What traits are considered unattractive? Which traits are typically seen as attractive and why?

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

/ \ and ⁄ / | \