The quantum resistant ledger has been running roughly a year and AFAIK as received some excellent praise and has received a lot of media coverage because of that although your point about reusing addresses wouldn't be sufficient in my opinion because we are then relying on the chance of the address not being targeted rather than implementing a system which is completely quantum resistant. It is true that the less you reuse an address the less exposure it has on the public ledger and thus the less likely it is to be a target although this doesn't completely prevent the address from being targeted due to it still being recorded on the address once they receive an amount. By implementing a quantum resistant algorithm we at least prevent this sort of attack from happening and there is no risk whatsoever although I would agree that reusable addresses shouldn't be a thing and you should only be able to use new addresses every time for other privacy issues but the way its implemented into the blockchain right now is the user gets to decide what sort of piracy level they are comfortable with which could possibly be the best approach if we are to stick with the decentralized way of Bitcoin and not limit users of it to specific rules.
The quantum resistant ledger (QRL) is only an example and there are many other projects which are doing different things with the end goal being the same; protecting the ledger from quantum computers. I disagree and think that being able to reuse an address is a security and privacy issue in its own right and has nothing to do with the freedom of the users to reuse the address. By allowing them to reuse addresses we are allowing them the opportunity to be stung but I'm always going to support projects which allow more privacy and can combat cash in that sense but I'm going away from the original point. Implementing a different algorithm might not be necessary until the very late stages of quantum computers and that would allow us to thoroughly test each algorithm while quantum computers are out potentially even using quantum computers to find out the answers to our questions about how well it scales. The biggest concern with the QRL is that scability might be a big issue and there is no way to really test that. We have the theory of it working and being able to scale up however as we all know more solid theories in the past have been proven wrong. My point is that we could be implementing something which might not even protect us against our issues and then we would have to implement another system anyway which each time is going to affect the adoption and short term value of the currency. The only real benefit of doing it several times over in a short period of time would be media coverage other than that this would affect the daily users of Bitcoin and would be largely not beneficial to the system as a whole.