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')。

进一步阐述康拉德的评论:

求值的顺序不是 定义良好的

一些函数式语言有所谓的惰性求值。这意味着直到需要该值时才执行函数。在此之前，传递的是函数本身。

过程式语言是步骤1、步骤2、步骤3……如果在第二步你说加2 + 2，它马上就会做。在惰性求值中，你会说2 + 2，但如果结果从未被使用，它就永远不会做加法。

过程性语言倾向于跟踪状态(使用变量)，并倾向于按步骤序列执行。纯函数式语言不跟踪状态，使用不可变值，并倾向于作为一系列依赖项执行。在许多情况下，调用堆栈的状态所保存的信息与过程代码中存储在状态变量中的信息相同。

递归是函数式编程的一个经典例子。

@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]

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.