On 3 January 2011 11:26, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> wrote:
> This will filter down to programmers as an extra layer of optimisation > in compilers/runtimes, and maybe a concurrency library or three. > It'll take more than that to keep the for loop down. > > for-loop? How quaint... I thought it was all about the folds and monadic comprehensions nowadays. > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Do programmers need to understand quantum mechanics to program? > > > > Well not yet, but it will when we advance in quantum computing and > > make use of qubits and entanglements. The Copenhagen interpretation of > > quantum mechanics implies that after a while, and unobserved, it makes > > no sense to even consider "state" (Schrödinger's cat) and the > > programming paradigms born on top of this computational model > > (fundamentally different than our current Von Neuman model) would > > spell the death of core constructs we use today such as branching, > > iteration etc. > > > -- Kevin Wright gtalk / msn : [email protected] <[email protected]>mail: [email protected] vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
