If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why do we need Q#?
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/visualstudio/2018/11/15/why-do-we-need-q/ -- With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why do we need Q#?
On 11/16/2018 10:45 AM, 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/visualstudio/2018/11/15/why-do-we-need-q/ We don't! -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 ¤£*ɶU! ¤£¶BÄF! ¤£½ä¿ú! ¤£´©¥æ! ¤£¥´¥æ! ¤£¥´§T! ¤£¦Û±þ! ¤£¨D¯«! ½Ð¦Ò¼{ºî´© (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why do we need Q#?
On 11/15/18 20:17, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 11/16/2018 10:45 AM, 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/visualstudio/2018/11/15/why-do-we-need-q/ We don't! we didn't/don't need C-pound, either. Nor '.Not'. But none of this will stop Micro-shaft from cramming it at us and insisting we jump on "yet another bandwagon" and chase "yet another moving target" as a development platform, until they pull the rug from under us and decide to stop supporting it... Micro-shat has been "getting it wrong" since the ".Not" initiative in the early noughties. It was wrong then, it's still wrong now, and win-10-nic is just another example of them NOT having a clue. now, where did I leave my clue-bat... -- (aka 'Bombastic Bob' in case you wondered) 'Feeling with my fingers, and thinking with my brain' - me 'your story is so touching, but it sounds just like a lie' "Straighten up and fly right" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why do we need Q#?
On 11/15/18 20:17, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 11/16/2018 10:45 AM, ?? Good Guy ?? wrote: "Big Bad Bob" wrote | https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/visualstudio/2018/11/15/why-do-we-need-q/ | | We don't! | Why don't you block those posts? Do you just like to get mad? Neither of them posts anything but pro-MS and anti-everyone else. I'm not convinced either one is even a human. Though Good Guy's animosity seems a bit too colorful to be cooked up by software. Do you actually understand the page linked? I don't. I wasn't aware that so-called quantum computing even existed yet. Maybe it doesn't and they're just planning. The fact the author uses "TL;DR" is a good indicator that he thinks by piling popular, current cliches together. Which is an interesting thing about programmers in general. They tend to be people who are very good with math but virtually incapable of intellectual thinking. By which I mean that if the meaning of life or advice on dating can't be rendered in a scientific formula then it doesn't count for them as a relevant topic for their attention. The piece is sort of interesting, though. It sounds like Q is meant to be used like inline assembly. The main difference I can see is that inline assembly does something, going direct to the CPU, while it's not clear what, if anything, Q does at this point. Their sample code looks like randomization. But I don't think I have the curiosity to figure out whether they're really talking about something. (Nor do I want to install the latest VS.) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why do we need Q#?
On 11/16/2018 4:45 PM, Big Bad Bob wrote:
we didn't/don't need C-pound, either. Nor '.Not'. But none of this will stop Micro-shaft from cramming it at us and insisting we jump on "yet another bandwagon" and chase "yet another moving target" as a development platform, until they pull the rug from under us and decide to stop supporting it... Micro-shat has been "getting it wrong" since the ".Not" initiative in the early noughties. It was wrong then, it's still wrong now, and win-10-nic is just another example of them NOT having a clue. now, where did I leave my clue-bat... A new/different programming language is just a change of words and syntax! -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 ¤£*ɶU! ¤£¶BÄF! ¤£½ä¿ú! ¤£´©¥æ! ¤£¥´¥æ! ¤£¥´§T! ¤£¦Û±þ! ¤£¨D¯«! ½Ð¦Ò¼{ºî´© (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Q# compiler? Written in C?
On 11/16/2018 9:31 PM, Mayayana wrote:
The piece is sort of interesting, though. It sounds like Q is meant to be used like inline assembly. The main difference I can see is that inline assembly does something, going direct to the CPU, while it's not clear what, if anything, Q does at this point. Their sample code looks like randomization. But I don't think I have the curiosity to figure out whether they're really talking about something. (Nor do I want to install the latest VS.) Anyone wanna bet that Q# compiler would be written in C? -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 ¤£*ɶU! ¤£¶BÄF! ¤£½ä¿ú! ¤£´©¥æ! ¤£¥´¥æ! ¤£¥´§T! ¤£¦Û±þ! ¤£¨D¯«! ½Ð¦Ò¼{ºî´© (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why do we need Q#?
On 11/16/2018 10:33 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-11-16 08:31, Mayayana wrote: [...] Do you actually understand the page linked? I don't. I wasn't aware that so-called quantum computing even existed yet. Maybe it doesn't and they're just planning. [...] Quantum computing is simulated in ordinary computers. Obviously not the really big problems that a true q-machine could solve, but manageable problems to test programming concepts and provide proof-of-concept. A coding langauge for q-machines is part of that effort: it's kinda difficult to think in terms of propositions that are both true and false until the probability wave collapses (which IMO is a highly misleading metaphor, aka "interpretation", but that's another issue). FWIW, a recent report in New Scientists said that one of the players (IBM?) has managed to isolate four or five q-bits IIRC. The technical problem is to maintain q-bits long enough to actually do some real work. Single-atom q-bits are very unstable. There are some hints that molecular q-bits could be more stable, ie, could be made at higher temperatures. In any case, portable q-machines will not be available, since the chips will ahve to be cooled to near absolute zero. Quantum is just a different magic wand! There is nothing new there! -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 ¤£*ɶU! ¤£¶BÄF! ¤£½ä¿ú! ¤£´©¥æ! ¤£¥´¥æ! ¤£¥´§T! ¤£¦Û±þ! ¤£¨D¯«! ½Ð¦Ò¼{ºî´© (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why do we need Q#?
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-11-16 08:31, Mayayana wrote: [...] Do you actually understand the page linked? I don't. I wasn't aware that so-called quantum computing even existed yet. Maybe it doesn't and they're just planning. [...] Quantum computing is simulated in ordinary computers. Obviously not the really big problems that a true q-machine could solve, but manageable problems to test programming concepts and provide proof-of-concept. A coding langauge for q-machines is part of that effort: it's kinda difficult to think in terms of propositions that are both true and false until the probability wave collapses (which IMO is a highly misleading metaphor, aka "interpretation", but that's another issue). FWIW, a recent report in New Scientists said that one of the players (IBM?) has managed to isolate four or five q-bits IIRC. The technical problem is to maintain q-bits long enough to actually do some real work. Single-atom q-bits are very unstable. There are some hints that molecular q-bits could be more stable, ie, could be made at higher temperatures. In any case, portable q-machines will not be available, since the chips will ahve to be cooled to near absolute zero. Best, The story has elements of cold fusion. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5...ntum-computer/ At least a few STEM people will earn a decent wage and get free dental care out of it. The investors ? Not so much. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|