3 ms·
1. Why not Julia? IIRC, some/all of this already exists in that ecosystem. > Something to note is that quantum algorithms are never purely quantum. There is a
by Archit3ch 2mo ago
1. Why not Julia? IIRC, some/all of this already exists in that ecosystem.
> Something to note is that quantum algorithms are never purely quantum. There is a tonne of classical processing needed to get inputs ready, post-process outputs, and even construct and represent the quantum circuits themselves.
2. Did you face any problems for the 'surrounding' areas by JAX imposing the limitation of pure functions?
- infinitewalk 2mo agoMain reason is that the quantum computing/scientific research user base is still very Python entrenched
- Archit3ch 2mo agoSure, but if you're writing in the JAX DSL you've already abandoned python.
- Gangway0829 2mo agoI mean, not really? Most Jax code is only marginally more restrictive than numpy, and most of the annoyances I have with Jax are shared with numpy. And having spent too much of my life writing some extremely high performance physics code, 99% of the code complexity comes from the stupid stuff, like handling configuration and IO and restarting. Python handles that stuff great. Oh, and tests. Ever tried to write unit tests in Fortran? You'll hug python tight and promise it you'll never leave again.
- Archit3ch 2mo agoIt proves the point. Numpy still doesn't have the semantics of a full programming language like Mojo/C++/Julia.