> Just as you might know plenty about programming but little or nothing about electronics or chip fabrication, so too can you learn about the wonders of quantum programming without knowing anything about the physics of the D-Wave Vesuvius processor or whatever.

I think you misunderstand me; I think it's great that people get into QC, and indeed they don't have to know everything from top to bottom (like I don't).

I just think that it should be regarded as getting into a specific area of biology, physics, or any other area of science, instead of being equated to learning C when you know Java, or something :)

The physical properties of 'non-quantum' computing are so baked in, in-grained, and abstracted in standard ways that we don't have to think about them very much -- and I think that abstractionism is the essence of the magic power of programming. But when I learned C it really helped me to know what was going on 'behind' the compiler, on the hardware.

As a programmer of apps and widgets I only need to know the rules of the game that my framework and language exposes, and I think it probably always helps to have a bigger context, but I think it is increasingly less necessary for getting stuff done.

With quantum, the entire stack is different. Like a computer from an alternate universe ;) So that whole stack has to be built up again.

But I think abstraction and encapsulation is going to allow many (most?) programmers to use the quantum computer without ever having to know what's going on behind the keyboard and the screen, just like our normal computers now.

>instead of being equated to learning C when you know Java, or something :)

I agree, I tried looking into some QC stuff that was presented that way, my impression after was that it's more akin to learning to solder together PCB boards to make a computer from scratch when all you know is basic HTML.

What topology do you have in mind when referring to "the topology"?

I was thinking of which physical qubits are connected to each other.