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: 22.06.2025 03:38
i.e. “operator like things” at the nodes …
plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])
Another canonical form could be Lisp S-expressions, etc.
Scottie Scheffler’s wife reveals infant son’s bathroom mishap during Memorial win - New York Post
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.
a b i 1 x []
Most coding assistants — with or without “modern “AI” — also do reasoning and manipulation of structures.
Why do some of those who believe in a god refuse to consider the possibility they could be wrong?
+ for
A slogan that might help you get past the current fads is:
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”.
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.
in structures, such as:
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
Young researcher’s ALS attack plan is now a no-go - Harvard Gazette
NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!
/ \ and ⁄ / | \