Anyone tried to code something with this yet?

Anyone tried to code something with this yet?
microsoft.com/en-us/quantum/development-kit

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/QISKit/qiskit-sdk-py
ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/10/quantum-computing-barrier/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No.

How it works on non quantum hardware? Does it simulate quantum hw? Why should anyone waste their time on this?

>Fully integrated with visual studio

No and I don't expect to until I have a QPU I can drop into my rig and the tools to compile code without using the world's heaviest ide

yeah, it emulates the qbits

I like it, but why base it on C#? I think some QAsm or Q++ would be much more comfy desu. Still might try it if my computer has any more room for Dev tools.

>so many quantum kits around
>he chooses the proprietary one

Is there open source one?

you can use it to test your algorithms before dumping it on a real quantum computer.
Calculations on those add up quickly. In one day, you can easily rack up $2 million in expenses on a quantum computer.

Yeah, if there is an open source alternative that can compile and run stuff on linux I'd be interested

>the world's heaviest ide

>Half gig install size
Vim, bash and every compiler worth using is still about 530MB less than this slow garbage

github.com/QISKit/qiskit-sdk-py
IBM is miles ahead of everyone else in the quantum field, but you'd be surprised at the kind of hardware you need to simulate a quantum computer.
ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/10/quantum-computing-barrier/
>3TB of RAM to simulate a 56-qubit quantum computer

If you have genuine interest in the field and an actual need for lots of qubits, you NEED to use a cloud service.
If you're just going to dick around on muh loonix and open sores, you can go play around with your measly 5 or so qubits.

It's basically shit.

IBM's is a lot better, as theirs relates concrete to their 5 (and their 16) qubit machine. So rather than being an idealised simulation they have a phenomonological model (non Markovian redfield equation, none of that Lindblad nonsense either, this isn't quantum optics Lindblad fags) that does a reasonable job of describing their machine's ability to produce expected states. At least for their 5 qubit machine, their 16 qubit machine is just dogshit. Their 20 qubit machine is probably also dogshit.

t. Someone that contributes to QISKit.

nowadays you can't even get a GPU

I had the chance to contribute to QISKit but didn't take it. How is it over there?

The default installation also includes two source version management solutions (git, vsts) and a build system (msbuild).
I think you'll find that the installation size is quite reasonable.

>surprised
Surely even Sup Forums understand 2^n user. No reason to dis 5 qubits though, you can do a lot with that, including many interesting states. It's certainly enough to start verifying intelligent state verification algorithms and the like.

I'm in the private sector, we're just one of the few groups that contribute officially. It's reasonably interesting, but it's also not groundbreaking in of itself. As far as I'm concerned there are higher priority areas to spend resource on (state verification without full quantum tomography being my hobby horse), but we have a few new hires writing code for QISKit proper. Apparently they don't teach PhDs that you shouldn't push code with rude variable names, so I have the added job of being a type of babysitter.

>Half a gig for git and a shit build system
>Reasonable

I was new once too kiddo.

>comparing a text editor to a full-featured IDE
I was new once too kiddo.

inb4 b-but you can use all of these fifty vim scripts to get 20% of features that come standard in any reasonable IDE but without any mutual integration whatsoever

>Apparently they don't teach PhDs that you shouldn't push code with rude variable names