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。

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

哇，这是一个有趣的讨论。我对此有自己的看法:

FP使一些任务相对简单(与非FP语言相比)。 非FP语言已经开始从FP中汲取思想，所以我怀疑这种趋势会继续下去，我们将看到更多的合并，这将帮助人们更容易地过渡到FP。

为什么函数式编程很重要

函数式编程将很可能成为工程师和科学家用来解决他们所面临的问题的工具。它不会像早期的语言那样占领世界。然而，最难打败的产品是Excel，如果我是一名工程师，需要做计算，Excel是很棒的。

However, F# is going to be another source and will likely fill design needs by the non-Computer Scientists. Let's face it, Computer Scientists have done a great job of creating a WHOLE new way of doing things. Object Oriented Programming is GREAT. But sometimes you just need a way to solve an equation, get a solution and graph it. That's it. Then a language like F# fills the bill. Or maybe you want to build a finite state machine, F# again could be one of the solutions, but then C could be a solution as well.

但是当涉及到并行处理时，Excel大放异彩，f#也会及时出现。但是要以友好的方式，F#= friendly。