Compiled vs Interpreted software languages on a quantum computer

[CRSaka..]

On a quantum computer would an interpreted language be faster than a compiled language?

 

I feel like an interpreted language would be able to make more use of the quantum computer.

 

My assumptive theoretical reasoning explained in an analogy:

I feel the compiled language would be like a car that can only drive on a road where an interpreted language would act as a drone and be able to fly over the roads, fields, or trees.

 

What do you think?

[CRSaka..]

1 hour ago, Erik Sieghart said:

... What you're saying doesn't make any sense.

Do you believe quantum computing would invalidate the benefits of compilations greater one-to-one correspondence. since in it's very nature true quantum is one-to-infinite.

So wouldn't a step-by-step process flow be more beneficial since the solution would be found on the first evaluation regardless of the possibilities?

 

another analogy.

I feel like in a true non pseudo quantum computer running interpreted code would be like throwing a dart blind folded and always hitting your target where running through a compiler would require you to grab the dart and then throw the dart always hitting your target. So wouldn't compilers be invalidated since they simply create an additional step in a quantum setup?

 

Please expand on why that makes no sense. Keep in mind quantum computers don't truly exist yet so this is all theoretical. I'd like to hear your view on this though. Have I misunderstood something along the way?

[vorticalbox]

I believe they are more suited to data crunching. So if you wanted to fly from one place to another but drive from there to somewhere else and then stay in a hotel, You can feed it all possible data and it can generate all possible outcomes very quickly.

 

Seeing as this isn't a step by step (check each possibility one at a time) I would say a compiled language would be able to make better use.

[straight_stewie]

On 10/8/2016 at 4:33 AM, vorticalbox said:

I believe they are more suited to data crunching

Quantum computers are good at problems dealing with permutations (read "optimizations"): D-Wave's explanation.

Basically the way that quantum computers (that is, those computers using qubits) work is by entangling (or simulating entanglement with) qubits. This is a really complicated thing that no one understands (Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance") but suffice it to say that changing a property of one of the entangled particles will also, instantaneously, change the same property of another particle in a predictable way. So how do we use this in computing?

We give each particle a "spin". Then we entangle particles together in ways that mean something (the pattern is different for every program). Next, we apply all possible start conditions to one of the particles, and observe the output (that is: the change to the spin) of each of the other particles. We now have a computer that's able to calculate permutations of an "infinitely large set" (theoretically, you are actually limited by how many qubits you can string together at once), by only manipulating the values of the first "place". 

Now, all "instructions" to a quantum computer are called "quantum machine instructions" and they are essentially EXTREMELY high level matrix math equations. I think that D-Wave explains it best: Programming with DWave Introduction
 Programming with D-Wave, Map Coloring Problem Whitepaper