当您希望将函数视为数据而不是代码时，可以使用表达式。如果您想操作代码(作为数据)，可以这样做。大多数情况下，如果你认为不需要表达式，那么你可能就不需要使用表达式。

主要原因是当您不想直接运行代码，而是想检查它时。这可能有很多原因:

Mapping the code to a different environment (ie. C# code to SQL in Entity Framework) Replacing parts of the code in runtime (dynamic programming or even plain DRY techniques) Code validation (very useful when emulating scripting or when doing analysis) Serialization - expressions can be serialized rather easily and safely, delegates can't Strongly-typed safety on things that aren't inherently strongly-typed, and exploiting compiler checks even though you're doing dynamic calls in runtime (ASP.NET MVC 5 with Razor is a nice example)

当您希望将lambda表达式视为表达式树并查看其内部而不是执行它们时。例如，LINQ to SQL获取表达式并将其转换为等效的SQL语句并将其提交给服务器(而不是执行lambda)。

Conceptually, Expression<Func<T>> is completely different from Func<T>. Func<T> denotes a delegate which is pretty much a pointer to a method and Expression<Func<T>> denotes a tree data structure for a lambda expression. This tree structure describes what a lambda expression does rather than doing the actual thing. It basically holds data about the composition of expressions, variables, method calls, ... (for example it holds information such as this lambda is some constant + some parameter). You can use this description to convert it to an actual method (with Expression.Compile) or do other stuff (like the LINQ to SQL example) with it. The act of treating lambdas as anonymous methods and expression trees is purely a compile time thing.

Func<int> myFunc = () => 10; // similar to: int myAnonMethod() { return 10; }

将有效地编译为一个IL方法，该方法得不到任何结果并返回10。

Expression<Func<int>> myExpression = () => 10;

将被转换为描述不获取参数并返回值10的表达式的数据结构:

大图

虽然它们在编译时看起来是一样的，但编译器生成的内容完全不同。

很高兴知道你可以使用Func<TEntity, bool>与AsQueryable()扩展方法，如Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>>。

Func<App, bool> filter = x => x.Alias.Contains("gan");
var query = dbSet.Where(filter).AsQueryable();

在使用Count()或ToList()等执行方法之前，查询不会被执行。

我添加了一个针对新手的答案，因为这些答案似乎超出了我的理解范围，直到我意识到它是多么简单。有时是你认为事情很复杂，这让你无法“理清思路”。

我不需要理解其中的区别，直到我遇到了一个非常烦人的“bug”，试图一般地使用LINQ-to-SQL:

public IEnumerable<T> Get(Func<T, bool> conditionLambda){
  using(var db = new DbContext()){
    return db.Set<T>.Where(conditionLambda);
  }
}

这工作得很好，直到我开始在更大的数据集上得到outofmemoryexception。在lambda中设置断点使我意识到它正在逐一遍历表中的每一行，寻找与lambda条件匹配的条件。这让我困惑了一段时间，因为为什么它把我的数据表作为一个巨大的IEnumerable，而不是像它应该做的那样做LINQ-to-SQL ?它也在我的LINQ-to-MongoDb对应版本中做同样的事情。

修复方法是简单地将Func<T, bool>转换为表达式<Func<T, bool>>，所以我谷歌了为什么它需要一个表达式而不是Func，在这里结束。

表达式只是将委托转换为关于自身的数据。所以a => a + 1就变成了"左边有一个整数a，右边你给它加1 "就是这样。你现在可以回家了。它显然比这更有结构，但这本质上就是表达式树的全部——没有什么可以让你理解的。

Understanding that, it becomes clear why LINQ-to-SQL needs an Expression, and a Func isn't adequate. Func doesn't carry with it a way to get into itself, to see the nitty-gritty of how to translate it into a SQL/MongoDb/other query. You can't see whether it's doing addition or multiplication or subtraction. All you can do is run it. Expression, on the other hand, allows you to look inside the delegate and see everything it wants to do. This empowers you to translate the delegate into whatever you want, like a SQL query. Func didn't work because my DbContext was blind to the contents of the lambda expression. Because of this, it couldn't turn the lambda expression into SQL; however, it did the next best thing and iterated that conditional through each row in my table.

编辑:应约翰·彼得的要求，对我的最后一句话进行解释:

IQueryable extends IEnumerable, so IEnumerable's methods like Where() obtain overloads that accept Expression. When you pass an Expression to that, you keep an IQueryable as a result, but when you pass a Func, you're falling back on the base IEnumerable and you'll get an IEnumerable as a result. In other words, without noticing you've turned your dataset into a list to be iterated as opposed to something to query. It's hard to notice a difference until you really look under the hood at the signatures.

当使用LINQ-to-SQL时，将Func<>s传递给Where()或Count()是不好的。真正的坏。如果你使用Func<>，那么它调用IEnumerable LINQ的东西，而不是IQueryable，这意味着整个表被拉进来，然后过滤。表达式<Func<>>明显更快，因为它在SQL服务器上执行过滤-特别是如果您正在查询位于另一个服务器上的数据库。