>> The basic premise is that when an editor knows about what source code is and
>> does it can offer new views of it etc.
>> 
>> Anyone got any views of their own?

Yes.

It's not a matter of being hard-core. The fundamental premise is that
text is the only universal format. If you keep the 'data' in a 'database',
then how do other tools reason on it? Only if they can read the format,
of course. This tends to mean, "only if they're from the same vendor".
Keeping your 'data' in a universally agreed format is important. I would
contend that text is the only one for source code.

Having structural information is important, but the common format
must not thrown away in pursuit of it. The concept is in direct
opposition to the toolset principle.

But, in this case, the guy is actually promoting strict syntax
directed editing, a well-worn-out concept. Under the section "Real
World SCID Implementations", he says

	The usual reaction I get from programmers when I mention SCIDs is that
	they have tried them and they hate them.  What they have tried are
	coding templates where you fill in the blanks.  These stop you from
	coding in the old way, yet offer almost no payback.  Granted SCIDs
	will force you to rethink how you compose programs.  Code must at all
	times be 100% syntactically correct.  However, a good SCID will pay
	back 100 fold for this inconvenience.  If you try to import or paste
	code that is not correct, you will find much of it being turned into a
	special kind of comment

'Nuff said. You really don't want it. The last thing you want when in the
middle of creating something is to have an editor forcing you to dot
the I's and cross the t's.

Composition of programs is not linear, in exactly the same way as a
novelist might be writing the introduction, the guts, and the end all
at the same time.  So even if syntactically correct entry is an
improvement over coding templates, they both force an uncomfortable
approach which strangles creativity.  The programmers aren't wrong,
there is plenty of research to support this, and he shouldn't be so
dismissive.

Every so often someone ressurects this idea.  In this case, despite
his claim to have been promoting it since the 70's, he doesn't mention
any of the classic research on the subject, which started at least as
early as the 70's.

Try reading papers on the Gandalf project as a starting point.