大多数应用程序都足够简单，可以用正常的面向对象方法解决

OO的方式并不总是“正常的”。这个十年的标准是上个十年的边缘化概念。 函数式编程是数学。Paul Graham谈Lisp(用函数式编程取代Lisp):

简单解释一下 20世纪50年代的语言并没有过时 不是技术而是数学，而且 数学不会过时。正确的 Lisp不是20世纪50年代的东西 硬件，但是，比如说，快速排序 算法，是在 1960年，现在仍然是最快的 通用的排序。

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.

实际上，在阅读了《黑客与画家》之后，我正在学习LISP，我相信我会从LISP中学到一些东西，这将使我更好地理解我所编程的其他东西。现在我不认为我会在我的日常生活中使用LISP，只是因为有人在1995年创建了一个网站，成为雅虎商店。所以无论如何这是一个双赢(如果它流行起来，我赢了，如果没有，我得到了更多关于如何编程和如何工作的观点)

现在…关于另一个有点相关的问题，我认为明年32核处理器到来后编程会发生很大变化吗?是的，我不知道它是否会是函数式编程，但是…我很确定会有一些不同的东西!

I don't know whether it will catch on or not, but from my investigations, a functional language is almost certainly worth learning, and will make you a better programmer. Just understanding referential transparency makes a lot of design decisions so much easier- and the resulting programs much easier to reason about. Basically, if you run into a problem, then it tends to only be a problem with the output of a single function, rather than a problem with an inconsistant state, which could have been caused by any of the hundreds of classes/methods/functions in an imparative language with side effects.

FP的无状态本质更自然地映射到web的无状态本质，因此函数式语言更容易让自己更优雅，更RESTFUL的web应用程序。与JAVA和. net框架形成鲜明对比的是，它们需要在本质上无状态的功能平台(如web)上使用VIEWSTATE和SESSION键来维护应用程序状态，并维护有状态命令语言的抽象(有时相当容易泄漏)。

而且，应用程序越无状态，就越容易进行并行处理。如果你的网站很受欢迎，这对网络来说非常重要。向站点添加更多硬件以获得更好的性能并不总是那么简单。

为什么函数式编程很重要

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.