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?
Last Updated: 26.06.2025 03:50
A slogan that might help you get past the current fads is:
+ for
i.e. “operator like things” at the nodes …
Massive Dinosaur ‘Dance-Off’ Arena Discovered in Colorado - The Daily Galaxy
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.
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
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”.
Were knights’ lances practical weapons, or were they just for sports?
NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!
plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])
Another canonical form could be Lisp S-expressions, etc.
What the ‘Revenge Tax’ Is in the Tax Bill—and How It Could Pummel the Dollar - Barron's
/ \ and ⁄ / | \
in structures, such as:
Most coding assistants — with or without “modern “AI” — also do reasoning and manipulation of structures.
a b 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.