What would a very simple quantum program look like?

Re:What would a very simple quantum program look like? by archgoon on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @11:07AM (#14553272)

This keeps coming up from programmers, and it's utter nonsense. Learning Machine Learning isn't hard because I have to remember tricky and arbitrary names like Keras, Theano, NVidia, and CUDA. Learning those, and what they do is the easy part. Learning how to use them, how they work, and when to use them takes a lot more time than learning the names.

Is python a bad introductory language because it's not named "A Dynamic Language With Syntax that Looks Like Pseudo Code and Significant Whitespace"?

Names are easy, humans are really good at them. Like people, remembering them become second nature once you work with them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What would a very simple quantum program look like? by oh_sigh on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @01:34PM (#14554386)

You're confusing having meaningful names for systems vs having meaningful names for operations within a system. I don't think anyone has complained that "boolean logic' is called what it is, but imagine if each operation was called by the name of some great logician and not some quasi-related common english word.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What would a very simple quantum program look like? by archgoon on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @01:45PM (#14554483)

So you object to the terms 'dot' and 'cross' product? They signify nothing beyond the notation itself.

Also, I use 'bool' everywhere in various langauges to denote a value that is 'true or false'. Should we change all usages of it to 'bit' or 'flag' or 'TwoValues'? It's an operator in all respects, and calling it 'bool' creates no confusion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What would a very simple quantum program look like? by yellowapple on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @01:27PM (#14554322)

"Learning how to use them, how they work, and when to use them takes a lot more time than learning the names."

That part is made significantly easier if their names actually reflect how/when they're used and/or how they work. Remembering that information is also easier when there's at least some semblance of a mapping between the name and function/purpose.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What would a very simple quantum program look like? by ashark on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @01:27PM (#14554333)

> Is python a bad introductory language because it's not named "A Dynamic Language With Syntax that Looks Like Pseudo Code and Significant Whitespace"?

OTOH we say Python is a programming language, where both of those words have other meanings and uses that aid in both initial understanding and later recall. We don't say Python is a "squabitle flop-tangle" to mean the same thing.

I think that when it comes to labeling concepts, given the option of either names that provide a bit of grip or mirror-smooth ones that may only be conquered by direct, silo'd memorization, the former are preferable when possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]