进一步阐述康拉德的评论:

因此，纯函数式程序总是对输入产生相同的值，求值的顺序没有很好的定义;

因此，函数式代码通常更容易并行化。由于函数(通常)没有副作用，并且它们(通常)只是作用于它们的参数，因此许多并发问题都消失了。

当您需要能够证明您的代码是正确的时，也可以使用函数式编程。这在过程式编程中要困难得多(在函数式编程中不容易，但仍然容易)。

免责声明:我已经很多年没有使用函数式编程了，直到最近才开始重新研究它，所以我在这里可能不完全正确。：）

Funtional编程

num = 1 
def function_to_add_one(num):
    num += 1
    return num


function_to_add_one(num)
function_to_add_one(num)
function_to_add_one(num)
function_to_add_one(num)
function_to_add_one(num)

#Final Output: 2

过程式编程

num = 1 
def procedure_to_add_one():
    global num
    num += 1
    return num


procedure_to_add_one()
procedure_to_add_one()
procedure_to_add_one()
procedure_to_add_one()
procedure_to_add_one()

#Final Output: 6

Function_to_add_one是一个函数

Procedure_to_add_one是一个过程

即使你运行这个函数5次，每次它都会返回2

如果你运行这个过程五次，在第五次运行结束时，它会给你6。

免责声明:显然，这是对现实的一种超简化的看法。这个答案只是让我们了解了“函数”而不是“过程”。仅此而已。一旦你尝到了这种肤浅而深刻的直觉，开始探索这两种范式，你就会开始清楚地看到它们的区别。

对我的学生有帮助，希望对你们也有帮助。

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')。

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。

过程式编程将语句序列和条件构造划分为单独的块，称为过程，这些块通过参数化(非函数式)值。

函数式编程与此类似，只是函数是一类值，因此它们可以作为参数传递给其他函数，并作为函数调用的结果返回。

注意，在这个解释中，函数式编程是过程式编程的泛化。然而，少数人将“函数式编程”解释为没有副作用，这与除Haskell之外的所有主要函数式语言都完全不同，但无关紧要。