讨论中忽略的一点是，最好的类型系统存在于当代FP语言中。更重要的是，编译器可以自动推断所有(或至少大部分)类型。

有趣的是，在编程Java时，有一半的时间花在编写类型名上，然而Java到目前为止还不是类型安全的。虽然你可能从来没有在Haskell程序中写过类型(除非作为一种编译器检查的文档)，但代码是100%类型安全的。

我很难想象纯函数式语言会成为当今的通用语言，其中的原因我就不赘述了(因为它们是煽风点火的材料)。也就是说，无论哪种语言(如果允许的话)，函数式编程都能带来好处。对我来说，更容易测试我的代码。我经常和数据库打交道……我倾向于:

编写一个函数来获取数据、操作数据并返回数据 编写一个非常简单的包装器，调用数据库，然后返回通过函数传递该数据的结果

这样做允许我为操作函数编写单元测试，而不需要创建模拟之类的东西。

我确实认为纯函数式语言非常有趣……我只是觉得对我来说重要的是我们能从他们身上学到什么，而不是我们能用他们做什么。

当阅读Tim Sweeney的《The Next主流编程语言:A Game Developer’s Perspective》时，我的第一个想法是——我必须学习Haskell。

PPT

谷歌的HTML版本

我一定是糊涂了，但我还是不明白。是否有像f#这样的函数式语言编写的小型应用程序的实际例子，你可以查看源代码，并了解如何以及为什么使用这种方法比c#更好?

你最近有关注编程语言的发展吗?所有主流编程语言的每一个新版本似乎都从函数式编程中借用了越来越多的特性。

Closures, anonymous functions, passing and returning functions as values used to be exotic features known only to Lisp and ML hackers. But gradually, C#, Delphi, Python, Perl, Javascript, have added support for closures. Its not possible for any up-and-coming language to be taken seriously without closures. Several languages, notably Python, C#, and Ruby have native support for list comprehensions and list generators. ML pioneered generic programming in 1973, but support for generics ("parametric polymorphism") has only become an industry standard in the last 5 years or so. If I remember correctly, Fortran supported generics in 2003, followed by Java 2004, C# in 2005, Delphi in 2008. (I know C++ has supported templates since 1979, but 90% of discussions on C++'s STL start with "here there be demons".)

是什么让这些功能吸引程序员?这应该是显而易见的:它帮助程序员编写更短的代码。如果想要保持竞争力，未来所有的语言都将至少支持闭包。在这方面，函数式编程已经成为主流。

大多数应用程序都很简单 可以用正常的面向对象方法解决

谁说不能用函数式编程来处理简单的事情?并不是每个函数程序都需要是编译器、定理证明器或大型并行通信交换机。除了更复杂的项目外，我还经常使用f#来编写临时脚本。

我一直对“下一件大事”持怀疑态度。很多时候，下一个大事件纯粹是历史的偶然，无论技术好坏，它都在正确的时间出现在正确的地点。例如:c++， Tcl/Tk, Perl。所有的技术都是有缺陷的，都非常成功，因为它们被认为要么解决了当时的问题，要么与根深蒂固的标准几乎相同，或者两者兼而有之。函数式编程可能确实很棒，但这并不意味着它会被采用。

But I can tell you why people are excited about functional programming: many, many programmers have had a kind of "conversion experience" in which they discover that using a functional language makes them twice as productive (or maybe ten times as productive) while producing code that is more resilient to change and has fewer bugs. These people think of functional programming as a secret weapon; a good example of this mindset is Paul Graham's Beating the Averages. Oh, and his application? E-commerce web apps.

自2006年初以来，也有一些关于函数式编程和并行的讨论。因为像Simon Peyton Jones这样的人至少从1984年开始就一直在担心并行性，所以在函数式语言解决多核问题之前，我不会屏住呼吸。但它确实解释了目前一些额外的话题。

In general, American universities are doing a poor job teaching functional programming. There's a strong core of support for teaching intro programming using Scheme, and Haskell also enjoys some support there, but there's very little in the way of teaching advanced technique for functional programmer. I've taught such a course at Harvard and will do so again this spring at Tufts. Benjamin Pierce has taught such a course at Penn. I don't know if Paul Hudak has done anything at Yale. The European universities are doing a much better job; for example, functional programming is emphasized in important places in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. I have less of a sense of what's happening in Australasia.