我在这里没有看到真正强调的一点是，现代函数语言(如Haskell)实际上更多地关注流控制的第一类函数，而不是显式递归。您不需要像上面那样在Haskell中递归地定义阶乘。我想是这样的

fac n = foldr (*) 1 [1..n]

是一个完美的惯用结构，在精神上更接近于使用循环，而不是使用显式递归。

我相信过程式/函数式/目标式编程是关于如何处理问题的。

The first style would plan everything in to steps, and solves the problem by implementing one step (a procedure) at a time. On the other hand, functional programming would emphasize the divide-and-conquer approach, where the problem is divided into sub-problem, then each sub-problem is solved (creating a function to solve that sub problem) and the results are combined to create the answer for the whole problem. Lastly, Objective programming would mimic the real world by create a mini-world inside the computer with many objects, each of which has a (somewhat) unique characteristics, and interacts with others. From those interactions the result would emerge.

每种编程风格都有自己的优点和缺点。因此，做一些诸如“纯编程”(即纯粹的程序设计——顺便说一下，没有人会这样做，这有点奇怪——或纯粹的函数式或纯粹的目标)是非常困难的，如果不是不可能的话，除了一些专门设计来展示编程风格优势的基本问题(因此，我们称那些喜欢纯粹的人为“weenie”:D)。

Then, from those styles, we have programming languages that is designed to optimized for some each style. For example, Assembly is all about procedural. Okay, most early languages are procedural, not only Asm, like C, Pascal, (and Fortran, I heard). Then, we have all famous Java in objective school (Actually, Java and C# is also in a class called "money-oriented," but that is subject for another discussion). Also objective is Smalltalk. In functional school, we would have "nearly functional" (some considered them to be impure) Lisp family and ML family and many "purely functional" Haskell, Erlang, etc. By the way, there are many general languages such as Perl, Python, Ruby.

康拉德说:

因此，纯函数式程序总是为输入产生相同的值， 评价的顺序也不明确;这意味着不确定的值，比如 用户输入或随机值很难用纯函数式语言建模。

在一个纯函数式程序中求值的顺序可能很难(或者)解释(尤其是懒惰的人)，甚至不重要，但我认为说它没有被很好地定义，听起来就像你根本无法判断你的程序是否会工作!

Perhaps a better explanation would be that control flow in functional programs is based on when the value of a function's arguments are needed. The Good Thing about this that in well written programs, state becomes explicit: each function lists its inputs as parameters instead of arbitrarily munging global state. So on some level, it is easier to reason about order of evaluation with respect to one function at a time. Each function can ignore the rest of the universe and focus on what it needs to do. When combined, functions are guaranteed to work the same[1] as they would in isolation.

．.． 像用户输入或随机值这样的不确定值很难纯粹地建模 函数式语言。

The solution to the input problem in purely functional programs is to embed an imperative language as a DSL using a sufficiently powerful abstraction. In imperative (or non-pure functional) languages this is not needed because you can "cheat" and pass state implicitly and order of evaluation is explicit (whether you like it or not). Because of this "cheating" and forced evaluation of all parameters to every function, in imperative languages 1) you lose the ability to create your own control flow mechanisms (without macros), 2) code isn't inherently thread safe and/or parallelizable by default, 3) and implementing something like undo (time travel) takes careful work (imperative programmer must store a recipe for getting the old value(s) back!), whereas pure functional programming buys you all these things—and a few more I may have forgotten—"for free".

我希望这听起来不像狂热，我只是想补充一些观点。命令式编程，特别是像c# 3.0这样的强大语言中的混合范式编程，仍然是完成工作的完全有效的方法，并且没有银弹。

[1]…除了内存使用方面(参考Haskell中的foldl和foldl')。

@Creighton:

在Haskell中有一个叫做product的库函数:

prouduct list = foldr 1 (*) list

或者仅仅是:

product = foldr 1 (*)

惯用语的阶乘

fac n = foldr 1 (*)  [1..n]

很简单

fac n = product [1..n]

如果你有机会，我建议你买一份Lisp/Scheme，然后用它来做一些项目。最近流行起来的大多数思想都是在几十年前用Lisp表达的:函数式编程、延续(作为闭包)、垃圾收集，甚至XML。

所以这将是一个很好的方法来开始所有这些当前的想法，以及一些其他的，比如符号计算。

您应该知道函数式编程擅长什么，不擅长什么。它并不是什么都好。有些问题最好用副作用来表达，同样的问题会根据提问的时间给出不同的答案。

基本上这两种风格，就像阴阳。一个是有组织的，而另一个是混乱的。在某些情况下，函数式编程是显而易见的选择，而在其他情况下，过程式编程是更好的选择。这就是为什么至少有两种语言最近推出了新版本，包含了这两种编程风格。(Perl 6和d2)

#程序:#

例程的输出并不总是与输入直接相关。 每件事都有特定的顺序。 例程的执行可能有副作用。 倾向于强调以线性方式实现解决方案。

##Perl 6 ##

sub factorial ( UInt:D $n is copy ) returns UInt {

  # modify "outside" state
  state $call-count++;
  # in this case it is rather pointless as
  # it can't even be accessed from outside

  my $result = 1;

  loop ( ; $n > 0 ; $n-- ){

    $result *= $n;

  }

  return $result;
}

2 # # # # D

int factorial( int n ){

  int result = 1;

  for( ; n > 0 ; n-- ){
    result *= n;
  }

  return result;
}

#功能:#

通常递归。 对于给定的输入总是返回相同的输出。 计算的顺序通常是不确定的。 必须是无状态的。即任何手术都不能有副作用。 很适合并行执行 倾向于强调分而治之的方法。 可具有惰性求值的特性。

哈斯克尔# # # # (摘自维基百科);

fac :: Integer -> Integer

fac 0 = 1
fac n | n > 0 = n * fac (n-1)

或者在一行中:

fac n = if n > 0 then n * fac (n-1) else 1

##Perl 6 ##

proto sub factorial ( UInt:D $n ) returns UInt {*}

multi sub factorial (  0 ) { 1 }
multi sub factorial ( $n ) { $n * samewith $n-1 } # { $n * factorial $n-1 }

2 # # # # D

pure int factorial( invariant int n ){
  if( n <= 1 ){
    return 1;
  }else{
    return n * factorial( n-1 );
  }
}

#注:#

阶乘实际上是一个常见的示例，它展示了在Perl 6中创建新的操作符有多么容易，就像创建子例程一样。这个特性在Perl 6中根深蒂固，以至于Rakudo实现中的大多数操作符都是以这种方式定义的。它还允许您将自己的多个候选操作符添加到现有操作符。

sub postfix:< ! > ( UInt:D $n --> UInt )
  is tighter(&infix:<*>)
  { [*] 2 .. $n }

say 5!; # 120␤

这个例子还展示了范围创建(2..$n)和列表缩减元操作符([OPERATOR] list)与数字中缀乘法操作符的结合。(*) 它还表明，您可以在签名中放入——> UInt，而不是在签名后返回UInt。

(你可以用2开始范围，因为乘法“运算符”在不带任何参数的情况下调用时将返回1)