My understanding the surprising factor that settled the debate for analog vs digital computers. was that digital computers require far less precise electronics. the voltage in an analog computer has to be exactly 5.2648 volts, every resister, capacitor, transistor has to be a high precision part, the more complex the computer the higher precision required. while in a digital computer "close to 5 volts" is good enough. this makes the components cheaper, more reliable and smaller. and as such the digital computer won.
This is why I have my doubts about existing designs for quantum computers, the quantum algorithms we are trying to solve in hardware require an analog design and we rejected analog computers before, mainly because they were unable to scale. This inability to scale is the same problem we see with quantum computers.
Not only is "close to 5V" "good enough", it's so "good enough" that we consider a CPU running a program practically idealized. When programming a computer, you largely don't think about any hardware cases going wrong, because they're so vanishingly rare.
This is a huge departure from the physical world, and it speaks to what a massive benefit computers bring.
This is why I have my doubts about existing designs for quantum computers, the quantum algorithms we are trying to solve in hardware require an analog design and we rejected analog computers before, mainly because they were unable to scale. This inability to scale is the same problem we see with quantum computers.