Talk:Quantum programming language
A bit lacking
No mention of Shor and his polynomial time factorising algorithm (which would render most public key encryption schemes useless)? OH THE HUMANITY!! Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 11:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that an algorithm and not a language? --128.243.220.41 10:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Quantum programming
I think this article should be merged with Quantum Programming, as is the case with Functional Programming Languages redirecting to Functional Programming. It should also be languageS, as there are clearly more than one. The quantum programming "stub" would act as a better introduction than the current one, which asserts that "every quantum machine has to be controlled by classical device", which simply isn't true. For a start, all physical computational devices are quantum mechanical in nature, and there are languages (such as QML mentioned in quantum programming) which follow the design "Quantum data and control". The quantum circuit model itself exhibits quantum control.
Also, I think some of the language descriptions are currently a little too concrete and POV - some should be split into their own entries, much like Haskell and Ocaml are from functional programming. QCL is also not regarded as "the most advanced" language in a theoretical sense! Rather, a short summary of the design goals, paradigms used, and basis of the language would be better, with maybe a small example of syntax.
Anyway, what does anyone else think? I might have a go at fixing it up a bit soon.