[lomnakkus]

That's a valid point, but if the compilation/IDE pipeline is arranged sensibly, you'll get those errors and insert a couple of ")" and get to the real meat of the issue a few seconds later...?

On the other hand... with an AST-only editor I now have to mentally tune in even more to the way the editor will behave while typing code and any deviation from the expected behavior becomes absolutely crippling[1]. For me, personally, this can become more overhead than it's worth to correct a few misplaced ")" or "]" or ";" or whatever when I've finished typing the gist of my idea. (I honestly don't know what would be faster overall, and I suspect it depends on hideously complex factors like "how much time do you intend to spend on learning IDE-X vs. learning to 'edit files', etc. I guess we could start with studies on "does it work?" as in medicine, even if we have no clue as to how it supposedly works.)

I'm saying that given the enormous success (all things considered, etc.) of text-based editing the claimants have the burden of proof.

(Actually, I'll happily admit that I was at one point on the hype-train regarding AST-editing, but I'm more skeptical these days. The thing is that it's easy to produce the 80% solution at to make it look awesome, but the problem is that getting those last 10% is a killer. Just look at Chris Granger's project for an example of just how difficult it is to get to 90%.)

[1] The machine is a machine and can do ASTs perfectly all day long, but if I'm a bit sleepy or drunk it suddenly becomes impossible to edit and type in code because I can't do a perfect job at prediction...? That would be strange indeed!