[sunray2]

Very interesting!

What's the fundamental physical limits here? Namely, timing precision, latency and jitter? How fast could PyXL bytecode react to an input?

For info, there is ARTIQ: vaguely similar thing that effectively executes Python code with 'embedded level' performance:

https://m-labs.hk/experiment-control/artiq/

ARTIQ is quite common in quantum physics labs. For that you need very precise and determining timing. Imagine you're interfering two photons as they reach a piece of glass, so that they can interact. It doesn't get faster than photons! That typically means nanosecond timing, sub-microsecond latency.

How ARTIQ does it is also interesting. The Python code is separate from the FPGA which actually executes the logic you want to do. In a hand-wavy way, you're then 'as fast' as the FPGA. How, though? The catch is, you have to get the Python code and FPGA gateware talking to each other, and that's technically difficult and has many gotchas. In comparison, although PyXL isn't as performant, if it makes it simpler for the user, that's a huge win for everyone.

Congrats once again!

[sunray2]

(minor edit: for observing experimental signatures of photon interference, nanosecond precision is the minimum to see anything when synchronising your experimental bits and pieces, but to see a useful signal needs precision at the 10s of picoseconds! So, beyond what's immediately possible here.)

[brcmthrowaway]

Did you work at Rigetti?