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?

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

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

Are Latter-day Saints watch the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives? And if so, what do you think?

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

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.

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”.

Can you provide a list of cities named after animals and the animals they were named after?

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, […])

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

What does it feel like when a guy cums in your ass?

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

in structures, such as:

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

Mia Goth Joins Shawn Levy’s ‘Star Wars: Starfighter’ Alongside Ryan Gosling - Variety

+ for

a b i 1 x []