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?

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:

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

What's a joke you haven't used yet, but are dying to share?

/ \ 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.

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

NASA sounds alarm over massive planetary anomaly spreading worldwide traced to unknown forces beneath Earth’s crust - Glass Almanac

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

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”.

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

Is sunscreen toxic? The UV truthers on the internet sure think so. - The Boston Globe

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

a b i 1 x []

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

Social Security's 2026 COLA Has an Unpleasant Surprise in Store for Retirees - The Motley Fool

+ for

in structures, such as: