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.

除了其他答案之外，用纯函数术语来描述解决方案可以迫使人们更好地理解问题。相反，用函数式的思维方式会培养出更好的解决问题的能力。

*要么是因为功能范式更好，要么是因为它可以提供额外的攻击角度。

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。

我认为其中一个原因是有些人认为一门语言是否被接受最重要的部分是它有多好。不幸的是，事情很少这么简单。例如，我认为Python被接受的最大因素不是语言本身(尽管这非常重要)。Python如此受欢迎的最大原因是它庞大的标准库和更大的第三方库社区。

像Clojure或f#这样的语言可能是这个规则的例外，因为它们是构建在JVM/CLR之上的。因此，我没有答案。

事情朝着功能性的方向发展已经有一段时间了。过去几年的两个很酷的新孩子，Ruby和Python，都比之前的函数语言更接近——以至于一些Lispers开始支持其中一个或另一个，认为“足够接近”。

随着大规模并行硬件给每个人带来了进化的压力——函数式语言是应对这些变化的最佳位置——认为Haskell或f#将成为下一个大事件的飞跃并不像以前那么遥远。