Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 minor 45 references

A classification framework applied to ten quantum programming languages identifies key challenges for future designs.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-26 01:34 UTC pith:K3SAM3RM

load-bearing objection This is a standard survey that organizes ten quantum languages under one framework and lists challenges, with no new mechanisms or results.

arxiv 2606.26254 v1 pith:K3SAM3RM submitted 2026-06-24 quant-ph cs.PL

A Survey of Quantum Programming Languages

Quan Do , Hersh Gupta , Xiyuan Cao , Aarav Pabla , Pranav Singamsetty , Evan O'Grady , Keli Huang , Jens Palsberg This is my paper
classification quant-ph cs.PL
keywords quantum programming languagessurveyclassification frameworkquantum computinglanguage design challengesprogramming paradigmsquantum software
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This survey introduces a framework to classify quantum programming languages according to their core characteristics and features. It then applies the framework to analyze ten widely used languages through both conceptual descriptions and experimental evaluations. The analysis produces a set of concrete challenges that language designers will need to tackle as quantum computing matures. Readers interested in quantum software development would find this useful for understanding current options and gaps in the field.

Core claim

The paper establishes that its classification framework successfully organizes the surveyed quantum programming languages, enabling direct comparisons that expose common limitations and opportunities in areas such as abstraction, error management, and integration with classical computing.

What carries the argument

The language classification framework, which categorizes languages based on their programming models, hardware targets, and quantum-specific capabilities.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen set of ten languages together with the classification framework adequately represent the diversity and important aspects of existing quantum programming languages.

What would settle it

If a comprehensive review of additional quantum languages reveals substantially different challenges or shows that the framework fails to distinguish key differences, the survey's conclusions would not hold.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Future quantum programming languages can be designed to directly address the listed challenges.
  • The comparisons provide guidance on selecting appropriate languages for different quantum computing tasks.
  • Conceptual similarities across languages suggest opportunities for standardization in quantum software.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework might serve as a template for evaluating languages in related fields like quantum machine learning tools.
  • Addressing the challenges could accelerate the development of practical quantum applications beyond current demonstrations.
  • If the framework is widely adopted, it may lead to more consistent language features across the ecosystem.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a language classification framework and uses it to survey ten popular quantum programming languages. The findings include conceptual and experimental comparisons that result in a list of challenges for future language design.

Significance. This survey provides a structured overview of quantum programming languages in a rapidly developing field. The classification framework and derived challenges from comparisons offer a reference point that could inform future language design efforts. The inclusion of both conceptual analysis and experimental comparisons strengthens the contribution beyond a purely descriptive listing.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that ten languages are surveyed but does not name them; adding the list would improve immediate accessibility for readers.
  2. A summary table consolidating the framework classifications across all ten languages would enhance readability and allow quick cross-language comparisons.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our survey, including the structured classification framework, conceptual and experimental comparisons, and derived design challenges. The recommendation for minor revision is noted. No major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; descriptive survey only

full rationale

The paper is a survey that introduces a classification framework, applies it to ten languages, and lists challenges. No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear. All claims are observational and comparative; the framework and language selection are presented as author choices without any reduction to self-citation or self-definition. The work is self-contained as a descriptive exercise.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The survey depends on the authors' choice of which ten languages to include and the validity of their proposed classification framework; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5619 in / 915 out tokens · 13382 ms · 2026-06-26T01:34:49.324522+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum computing has seen multiple recent breakthroughs and is getting closer to demonstrations of an exponential advantage over classical computing for certain problems. Programmers will require high-level, general-purpose, executable programming languages to express quantum solutions clearly and effectively, and the field has already produced a wide variety of such languages. This paper presents a language classification framework and uses it to survey ten popular quantum programming languages. The findings include conceptual and experimental comparisons that result in a list of challenges for future language design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26254 by Aarav Pabla, Evan O'Grady, Hersh Gupta, Jens Palsberg, Keli Huang, Pranav Singamsetty, Quan Do, Xiyuan Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A sketch of Shor’s algorithm. The order finding procedure consists of the quantum circuit as well as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A sketch of the Trotterization approach to Hamiltonian simulation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A sketch of the LCU approach to Hamiltonian simulation. The repeat-until-success (RUS) procedure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A timeline of the overall program execution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An implementation in Qiskit of the repeat-until-success procedure of LCU with the matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In CUDA-Q, we can mix classical and quantum logic. In this example, we include the same repeat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cirq enables easy construction of a Hamiltonian through the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: PyQuil is similar to Cirq in that it allows the user to easily construct and exponentiate a Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: CUDA-Q allows the programmer to not only construct a Hamiltonian from Pauli operators, but also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: PennyLane provides a library function to perform state preparation on a set of qubits, which are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Q# provides a library function to perform state preparation on a set of qubits, which are passed in as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qualtran provides an LCUBlockEncoding operation. When combined with the BlackBoxSelect and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Qrisp supports quantum floats. It also has a QuantumModulus type, which allows the user to easily [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Silq supports quantum integers, which allows the user to easily program the modular exponentiation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Guppy supports dynamic allocation of qubits, which is useful in this LCU repeat-until-success loop. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Silq allows dynamic allocation of qubits. Vectors of quantum types can be initialized with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Guppy type checks functions with the @guppy decorator before they are executed. In this example, we must use Python type annotations to specify the types of the function arguments as well as the return type. Array types have static element types and sizes, so array type annotations must be parametrized with both. Here, the qs function parameter is an array type, where each element is a qubit, and the arra… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Berry, Andrew M

    Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma. 2015. Simulating Hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated Taylor series.Physical Review Letters114, 9 (2015), 090502

    2015

  2. [2]

    Benjamin Bichsel, Markus Baader, Timon Gehr, and Martin Vechev. 2020. Silq: A High-Level Quantum Language with Safe Uncomputation and Intuitive Semantics. InProceedings of the 41st ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. 286–300

    2020

  3. [3]

    Bernal Neira

    Avimita Chatterjee, Sonny Rappaport, Anish Giri, Sonika Johri, Timothy Proctor, and David E. Bernal Neira. 2025. A Comprehensive Cross-Model Framework for Benchmarking the Performance of Quantum Hamiltonian Simulations. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering(2025). Early access; see also arXiv reference in IEEE Xplore document 10949677

    2025

  4. [4]

    Christopher Cherfan. 2026. Quantum linear algebra algorithms in Silq. https://github.com/silq-lang/linalg. GitHub repository; accessed 2026-05-20

    2026

  5. [5]

    Cheng Chu, Zhenxiao Fu, Yilun Xu, Gang Huang, Hausi Muller, Fan Chen, and Lei Jiang. 2024. TITAN: A Fast and Distributed Large-Scale Trapped-Ion NISQ Computer. InProceedings of the 61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference(San Francisco, CA, USA)(DAC ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 54, 6 pages. doi:10.1145/3649329.3655908

    work page doi:10.1145/3649329.3655908 2024

  6. [6]

    Cirq Developers. 2024. Cirq: A Quantum Circuit Library. https://quantumai.google/cirq/. Accessed 2025-11-24. 26 Do, Gupta, Cao, Pabla, Singamsetty, O’Grady, Huang, and Palsberg

    2024

  7. [7]

    Francini Corrales-Garro, Danny Valerio-Ramirez, and Santiago Nunez-Corrales. 2025. Is Productivity in Quantum Programming Equivalent to Expressiveness? (2025). ArXiv 2504.08876

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Cross et al

    Andrew W. Cross et al. 2022. OpenQASM 3: A Broader and Deeper Quantum Assembly Language.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing(2022). See also arXiv:2104.14722

    work page arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Quan Do, Hersh Gupta, Elliot Cao, Aarav Pabla, Pranav Singamsetty, Evan O’Grady, Keli Huang, and Jens Palsberg

  10. [10]

    https://github.com/palsberg/Quantum-PL-survey

    A Survey of Quantum Programming Languages Repository. https://github.com/palsberg/Quantum-PL-survey. GitHub repository; accessed 2026-04-29

    2026

  11. [11]

    Richard P. Feynman. 1982. Simulating Physics with Computers.International Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 6 (1982), 467–488

    1982

  12. [12]

    Simon J. Gay. 2006. Quantum programming languages: survey and bibliography.Mathematical Structures in Computer Science16, 4 (2006), 581–600

    2006

  13. [13]

    Etienne Granet and Henrik Dreyer. 2025. AppQSim: Application-Oriented Benchmarks for Hamiltonian Simulation on a Quantum Computer.Physical Review Research(2025). arXiv:2503.04298 [quant-ph] doi:10.1103/qt55-7d6r Accepted; see also arXiv:2503.04298

    work page doi:10.1103/qt55-7d6r 2025

  14. [14]

    Green, Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine, Neil J

    Alexander S. Green, Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine, Neil J. Ross, Peter Selinger, and Benoît Valiron. 2013. Quipper: A Scalable Quantum Programming Language. InProceedings of the 34th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. 333–342

    2013

  15. [15]

    Harrigan, Tanuj Khattar, Charles Yuan, Anurudh Peduri, Noureldin Yosri, Fionn D

    Matthew P. Harrigan, Tanuj Khattar, Charles Yuan, Anurudh Peduri, Noureldin Yosri, Fionn D. Malone, Ryan Babbush, and Nicholas C. Rubin. 2024. Expressing and Analyzing Quantum Algorithms with Qualtran. arXiv:2409.04643 [quant- ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04643

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Heidt, Jose A

    Joachim M. Heidt, Jose A. Campos, Michel Serrao, Thomas Isenhägl, Thomas G. Draper, and Martin Roetteler. 2020. Quantum programming languages.Nature Reviews Physics2, 12 (2020), 647–663

    2020

  17. [17]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    Ali Javadi-Abhari, Ismael Faro Sertage, Luciano Bello, Lauren Capelluto, David C. McKay, et al . 2024. Quantum Computing with Qiskit.arXiv preprint(2024). arXiv:2405.08810

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Tyson Jones, Anna Brown, Ian Bush, and Simon C Benjamin. 2019. QuEST and high performance simulation of quantum computers.Scientific reports9, 1 (2019), 10736

    2019

  19. [19]

    Nathan Killoran, Josh Izaac, Nicolás Quesada, Ville Bergholm, Matthew Amy, and Christian Weedbrook. 2019. Straw- berry Fields: A Software Platform for Photonic Quantum Computing.Quantum3 (2019), 129. doi:10.22331/q-2019-03- 11-129

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2019-03- 2019

  20. [20]

    Jin-Sung Kim, Alex McCaskey, Bettina Heim, Manish Modani, Sam Stanwyck, and Timothy Costa. 2023. Cuda quantum: The platform for integrated quantum-classical computing. In2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 1–4

    2023

  21. [21]

    Mark Koch, Agustín Borgna, Craig Roy, Alan Lawrence, Kartik Singhal, Seyon Sivarajah, and Ross Duncan. 2025. Imperative Quantum Programming with Ownership and Borrowing in Guppy. InInformal Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Programming Languages for Quantum Computing (PLanQC ’25). arXiv:2510.13082 https: //github.com/quantinuum/guppylang

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Mark Koch, Agustin Borgna, Seyon Sivarajah, Alan Lawrence, Alec Edgington, Douglas Wilson, Craig Roy, Luca Mondada, Lukas Heidemann, and Ross Duncan. 2025. HUGR: A Quantum-Classical Intermediate Representation. In Informal Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Programming Languages for Quantum Computing (PLanQC ’25). arXiv:2510.11420 https://...

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Mark Koch, Alan Lawrence, Kartik Singhal, Seyon Sivarajah, and Ross Duncan. 2024. Guppy: Pythonic Quantum- Classical Programming. InInformal Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Programming Languages for Quantum Computing (PLanQC ’24). arXiv:2510.12582 https://github.com/quantinuum/guppylang

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Gushu Li, Li Zhou, Nengkun Yu, Yufei Ding, Mingsheng Ying, and Yuan Xie. 2020. Projection-based runtime assertions for testing and debugging Quantum programs.Proc. ACM Program. Lang.4, OOPSLA, Article 150 (Nov. 2020), 29 pages. doi:10.1145/3428218

    work page doi:10.1145/3428218 2020

  25. [25]

    Seth Lloyd. 1996. Universal Quantum Simulators.Science273, 5278 (1996), 1073–1078

    1996

  26. [26]

    Thomas Lubinski, Cassandra Granade, Amos Anderson, Alan Geller, Martin Roetteler, Andrei Petrenko, and Bettina Heim. 2022. Advancing hybrid quantum–classical computation with real-time execution.Frontiers in Physics10 (2022), 940293

    2022

  27. [27]

    Microsoft. 2024. The Q# Quantum Programming Language. https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/quantum/qsharp- overview. Accessed 2025-11-24

    2024

  28. [28]

    Mikko Mottonen, Juha J Vartiainen, Ville Bergholm, and Martti M Salomaa. 2004. Transformation of quantum states using uniformly controlled rotations.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0407010(2004)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  29. [29]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. 2010.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(10th anniversary edition ed.). Cambridge University Press. A Survey of Quantum Programming Languages 27

    2010

  30. [30]

    Archimedes Pavlidis and Dimitris Gizopoulos. 2014. Fast quantum modular exponentiation architecture for Shor’s factoring algorithm.Quantum Info. Comput.14, 7 & 8 (May 2014), 649–682

    2014

  31. [31]

    Kening Peng et al. 2024. SimuQ: A Language and Compiler for Analog Quantum Simulation.Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages8, POPL (2024). Preprint available as https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.02775

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    PennyLane Developers. 2024. PennyLane Documentation. https://docs.pennylane.ai/. Accessed 2025-11-24

    2024

  33. [33]

    PyQuil Developers. 2023. PyQuil Documentation. https://pyquil-docs.rigetti.com/. Accessed 2025-11-24

    2023

  34. [34]

    Qiskit Algorithms Developers. 2024. Qiskit Algorithms: Time Evolution and Simulation. https://qiskit-community. github.io/qiskit-algorithms/. Accessed 2025-11-24

    2024

  35. [35]

    Qiskit Contributors. 2024. Qiskit Documentation. https://qiskit.org/. Accessed 2025-11-24

    2024

  36. [36]

    Qrisp Developers. 2024. Qrisp Documentation. https://qrisp.eu/. Accessed 2025-11-24

    2024

  37. [37]

    Quantinuum. 2024. tket User Guide. https://docs.quantinuum.com/tket/. Accessed 2025-11-24

    2024

  38. [38]

    Nicolas P. D. Sawaya, Daniel Marti-Dafcik, Yang Ho, Daniel P. Tabor, David E. Bernal Neira, Alicia B. Magann, Shavindra Premaratne, Pradeep Dubey, Anne Matsuura, Nathan Bishop, Wibe A. de Jong, Simon Benjamin, Ojas Parekh, Norm Tubman, Katherine Klymko, and Daan Camps. 2024. HamLib: A Library of Hamiltonians for Benchmarking Quantum Algorithms and Hardwar...

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2024-12-11-1559 2024

  39. [39]

    Srinivasan Sivarajah, Simon Dilkes, Alexander Cowtan, Will Simmons, and Ross Duncan. 2020. t|ket>: A Retargetable Compiler for NISQ Devices.Quantum Science and Technology6, 1 (2020), 014003

    2020

  40. [40]

    A Practical Quantum Instruction Set Architecture

    Robert S. Smith, Michael J. Curtis, and William J. Zeng. 2016. A Practical Quantum Instruction Set Architecture.arXiv preprint(2016). arXiv:1608.03355

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Donald J. Sofge. 2008. A Survey of Quantum Programming Languages: History, Methods, and Tools. InProceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Quantum, Nano and Micro Technologies (ICQNM). 66–71

    2008

  42. [42]

    Strawberry Fields Developers. 2024. Strawberry Fields Documentation. https://strawberryfields.ai/. Accessed 2025-11-24

    2024

  43. [43]

    Svore, Alan Geller, Matthias Troyer, John Azariah, Christopher Granade, et al

    Krysta M. Svore, Alan Geller, Matthias Troyer, John Azariah, Christopher Granade, et al. 2018. Q#: Enabling Scalable Quantum Computing and Development with a High-Level DSL. InProceedings of the Real World Domain Specific Languages Workshop

    2018

  44. [44]

    H. F. Trotter. 1959. On the Product of Semi-Groups of Operators.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.10, 4 (1959), 545–551

    1959

  45. [45]

    Nengkun Yu and Jens Palsberg. 2021. Quantum abstract interpretation. InProceedings of the 42nd ACM SIGPLAN Inter- national Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation(Virtual, Canada)(PLDI 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 542–558. doi:10.1145/3453483.3454061

    work page doi:10.1145/3453483.3454061 2021