Doug, look at our documentations. I suggest you to explore our paclet more before any judgment. Only to mention a few examples for comparison, try to construct Quantum Switch in other packages or qiskit, or construct a controlled-gate with many control and many target.

I wouldn't say that absence of familiar notation makes it less Woframesque. I've never seen heavy use of notation in standard Wolfram code, unless it's some Domain Specific package, like the Quantum'Computing you mention. The notation is usually considered an add-on, which we can also provide on top of the paclet later. I see more and more "object-oriented" designs around WL nowadays (having high-level objects with a bunch of computed properties), so this one is no exception. For now, the Dirac notation is only part of output formatting, like "Amplitudes" and "Formula" reveal, for example.

You can add formatting, by making states show their simplified formula for example:

FormatValues[QuantumState] =.
Format[qs_QuantumState] := Expand @ FullSimplify @ qs["Formula"]

Then your Fourier example would look like this in the framework:

Your claims are simply wrong, indicating lack of proper knowledge/experience with the Wolfram Quantum Framework, or even with the Wolfram Language. One of the essential features of the Wolfram Language is code readability, even for none expert. Notations you like, are, of course, readable for quantum experts only, to say the least. Note those notations are a minor thing in design, and nothing fundamental at all, only a simple formatting in the input/output, as Nik mentioned.

I still cannot get my head around your quote "Notations you like, are, of course, readable for quantum experts only, to say the least. "

People coming to the Quantum Framework will have some understanding of Quantum Computing or Quantum information theory. Every textbook or course will present these subjects in terms of Dirac notation
Currently I am working through the proof of the deutsch-jozsa algorithm presented at the Qiskit Global Summer School 2021 and its all in Dirac notation and I need to understand it and I am not a "quantum expert" .

Lets say I want to study the Quantum Fourier Transforms . I go to Mike and Ike page 245 .

and using Mathematica and the Quantum Addonn I can code up that exact equations

If I consult the Qiskit book on Quantum Fourier Transforms at https://qiskit.org/textbook/ch-algorithms/quantum-fourier-transform.html

To say that Dirac Notation is for quantum experts only and it will not be readable to non expert is simply wrong (to quote you )

You're right to ask for a familiar notation, because that's how researchers like to write their WL code, by making it as close to textbook examples as possible. But the main point of the framework is to provide a set of high-level abstractions first for people to reason about. You can compare to any other scientific WL framework out there, like Molecule for chemistry, BioSequence for molecular biology, Region for geometry, ClassifierFunction for machine learning, or just any Entity in general for all-around knowledge concepts out there. Quantum Framework has an increasing level of abstractions introducing QuditBasis, QuantumBasis, QuantumState, QuantumOperator, QuantumMeasurementOperator, QuantumMeasurement, QuantumCircuitOperator, and some more. Learning how to input all of those with notation or not requires the same amount of learning curve, and serves different kinds of users. But abstract objects come first, notation sugar later.

If you look at the Quantum AddOn all the Dirac notation is there as input and output , it works perfectly . Any book or course on Quantum Computing or Quantum information is introduced in Dirac notation and quantum computer languages , Qiskit and Q# then code this Dirac notation into code .

The steep learning curve is understanding the Dirac notation . eg If you want to understand Quantum Fourier Transforms you are not going to get that from Qikit , or the Quantum Addon or WQF built in functions .

As stated before you need to look at the QFT formulae eg Mike and Ike

"Learning how to input all of those with notation or not requires the same amount of learning curve, and serves different kinds of users. But abstract objects come first, notation sugar later."

The abstract objects are those complicated dirac formulas as in Mike and Ike . If you can code for those then you are mastering QC or QIT, The abstraction is in the notation, master the notation and you master the abstraction.

When I can code like this am I mastering notation or abstraction, I say I am mastering both. So allow these techniques in the WQF

Here is my final plea to have Dirac Notation added as input to the WQF. This Dirac notation is fundamental to a completer and more versatile WQF. Just trust me on this one, I have been using Dirac Notation in Mathematica using the Quantum AddOn extensively now for more than 5 years and I can attest to its power and versatility, see attached notebook

Attachments:

notation.nb

Due to the number of comments getting quite large on the original discussion (https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2416125 ), they are being split into a separate discussion thread. Please follow the forum rules http://wolfr.am/StaffPicks and stay technical, concise and relevant to Wolfram Technologies. Please keep your further comments relevant to this specific discussion on this thread.