我不认为函数式编程方法“流行起来”有任何问题，因为它(作为一种编程风格)已经被使用了大约40年。每当OO程序员编写有利于不可变对象的干净代码时，这些代码就是借用了函数概念。

然而，这些天来，强制函数式风格的语言正在获得大量的虚拟墨水，这些语言是否会在未来占据主导地位是一个悬而未决的问题。我自己的怀疑是混合的、多范式的语言，如Scala或OCaml 将很可能统治“纯粹的”函数语言，就像纯粹的OO语言(Smalltalk、Beta等)影响了主流编程一样，但还没有成为最广泛使用的表示法。

最后，我忍不住要指出，你对FP的评论与我几年前从过程程序员那里听到的评论高度相似:

(恕我直言，这是神话)“普通”程序员不理解它。 这并没有被广泛教授。 任何你能用它来写的程序，都能用现有的技术以另一种方式来写。

Just as graphical user interfaces and "code as a model of the business" were concepts that helped OO become more widely appreciated, I believe that increased use of immutability and simpler (massive) parallelism will help more programmers see the benefits that the functional approach offers. But as much as we've learned in the past 50 or so years that make up the entire history of digital computer programming, I think we still have much to learn. Twenty years from now, programmers will look back in amazement at the primitive nature of the tools we're currently using, including the now-popular OO and FP languages.

它之所以流行起来，是因为它是控制复杂性的最佳工具。 看到的: ——西蒙·佩顿-琼斯演讲《哈斯凯尔的味道》幻灯片109-116 ——Tim Sweeney的《下一个主流编程语言:游戏开发者的视角

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.

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

OOP要花多长时间才能被普通的公司程序员理解? 我在乌得勒支大学(Utrecht University)学习函数式编程，我想是在1994年，直到最近几年它才开始在“现实世界”流行起来。 没有所谓的“简单应用程序”。: -)

我认为，当我们开始在硬件中添加越来越多的核心时，软件某些关键部分的免费编程(接近)将是必不可少的。给函数式编程多一点时间。在当前和未来的c#版本中，函数式编程将会让那些公司程序员在没有意识到的情况下做好函数式编程的准备……

一些想法:

The debate between FP and imperative programming (OO, structured, etc), has been raging since Lisp versus Fortran. I think you pose excellent questions but recognize that they are not especially new. Part of the hoopla over FP is that we seem to be recognizing that concurrency is very difficult, and that locks and other mechanisms in OO (e.g. Java) are just one solution. FP offers a refreshing sea change with ideas such as Actors and the power of stateless computing. To those wrestling with OO, the landscape seems highly appealing. Yes, schools teach FP. In fact, the University of Waterloo and others offer Scheme in first year classes (reference here). Regarding the average programmer, I'm sure that the same arguments were given against C++ back in the early 1990s. And look what happened. If businesses can gain an advantage via a technology, you can bet that people will receive training.

这并不是说这是板上钉钉的事，也不是说在3-5年内不会出现反弹(一如既往)。然而，朝着计划生育的趋势是有好处的，值得关注。