好的，从背景知识和阅读你所指向的维基百科页面来看，响应式编程似乎有点像数据流计算，但有特定的外部“刺激”触发一组节点来触发并执行它们的计算。

这非常适合UI设计，例如，触摸用户界面控件(例如，音乐播放应用程序上的音量控制)可能需要更新各种显示项和音频输出的实际音量。当您修改体积(比如一个滑块)时，这将对应于修改有向图中与节点相关的值。

具有“体积值”节点边缘的各种节点将自动被触发，任何必要的计算和更新将自然地贯穿整个应用程序。应用程序对用户刺激“做出反应”。函数式响应式编程只是在函数式语言中实现这一思想，或者通常在函数式编程范式中实现。

有关“数据流计算”的更多信息，请在维基百科或使用您喜欢的搜索引擎上搜索这两个词。总体思想是这样的:程序是一个节点的有向图，每个节点执行一些简单的计算。这些节点通过图链接相互连接，图链接将一些节点的输出提供给其他节点的输入。

当节点触发或执行其计算时，连接到其输出的节点将“触发”或“标记”相应的输入。任何触发/标记/可用所有输入的节点都会自动触发。图可以是隐式的，也可以是显式的，具体取决于响应式编程是如何实现的。

Nodes can be looked at as firing in parallel, but often they are executed serially or with limited parallelism (for example, there may be a few threads executing them). A famous example was the Manchester Dataflow Machine, which (IIRC) used a tagged data architecture to schedule execution of nodes in the graph through one or more execution units. Dataflow computing is fairly well suited to situations in which triggering computations asynchronously giving rise to cascades of computations works better than trying to have execution be governed by a clock (or clocks).

响应式编程引入了这种“执行级联”的思想，似乎以一种类似数据流的方式来考虑程序，但有一个附带条件，即一些节点与“外部世界”挂钩，当这些类似感知的节点发生变化时，执行级联就会被触发。程序的执行看起来就像一个复杂的反射弧。程序在两个刺激之间可能是基本固定的，也可能不是，也可能在两个刺激之间稳定在基本固定的状态。

"non-reactive" programming would be programming with a very different view of the flow of execution and relationship to external inputs. It's likely to be somewhat subjective, since people will likely be tempted to say anything that responds to external inputs "reacts" to them. But looking at the spirit of the thing, a program that polls an event queue at a fixed interval and dispatches any events found to functions (or threads) is less reactive (because it only attends to user input at a fixed interval). Again, it's the spirit of the thing here: one can imagine putting a polling implementation with a fast polling interval into a system at a very low level and program in a reactive fashion on top of it.

在纯函数式编程中，没有副作用。对于许多类型的软件(例如，任何与用户交互的软件)，在某种程度上副作用都是必要的。

在保持函数式风格的同时获得类似副作用的行为的一种方法是使用函数式响应式编程。这是函数式编程和响应式编程的结合。(你链接到的维基百科文章是关于后者的。)

响应式编程背后的基本思想是，有特定的数据类型表示“随时间”的值。涉及这些随时间变化的值的计算本身也具有随时间变化的值。

例如，您可以将鼠标坐标表示为一对随时间变化的整数值。假设我们有这样的东西(这是伪代码):

x = <mouse-x>;
y = <mouse-y>;

在任何时刻，x和y都是鼠标的坐标。与非响应式编程不同，我们只需要进行一次赋值，x和y变量将自动保持“最新”。这就是响应式编程和函数式编程协同工作的原因:响应式编程消除了对变量突变的需要，同时仍然允许您完成许多可以通过变量突变完成的工作。

如果我们在此基础上进行一些计算，得到的值也将是随时间变化的值。例如:

minX = x - 16;
minY = y - 16;
maxX = x + 16;
maxY = y + 16;

在这个例子中，minX总是比鼠标指针的x坐标小16。使用响应式感知库，你可以这样说:

rectangle(minX, minY, maxX, maxY)

一个32x32的方框将围绕鼠标指针绘制，并跟踪它的移动位置。

这是一篇关于函数式响应式编程的很好的论文。

关于响应式编程的简短而清晰的解释出现在Cyclejs -响应式编程中，它使用了简单和可视化的示例。

一个[模块/组件/对象]是反应性的意味着它是完全负责的 通过对外部事件的反应来管理自己的状态。 这种方法的好处是什么?这就是控制反转， 主要是因为[module/Component/object]对自己负责，使用私有方法来改进封装。

这是一个很好的起点，而不是一个完整的知识来源。从那里你可以跳到更复杂和更深入的文件。

好的，从背景知识和阅读你所指向的维基百科页面来看，响应式编程似乎有点像数据流计算，但有特定的外部“刺激”触发一组节点来触发并执行它们的计算。

这非常适合UI设计，例如，触摸用户界面控件(例如，音乐播放应用程序上的音量控制)可能需要更新各种显示项和音频输出的实际音量。当您修改体积(比如一个滑块)时，这将对应于修改有向图中与节点相关的值。

具有“体积值”节点边缘的各种节点将自动被触发，任何必要的计算和更新将自然地贯穿整个应用程序。应用程序对用户刺激“做出反应”。函数式响应式编程只是在函数式语言中实现这一思想，或者通常在函数式编程范式中实现。

有关“数据流计算”的更多信息，请在维基百科或使用您喜欢的搜索引擎上搜索这两个词。总体思想是这样的:程序是一个节点的有向图，每个节点执行一些简单的计算。这些节点通过图链接相互连接，图链接将一些节点的输出提供给其他节点的输入。

当节点触发或执行其计算时，连接到其输出的节点将“触发”或“标记”相应的输入。任何触发/标记/可用所有输入的节点都会自动触发。图可以是隐式的，也可以是显式的，具体取决于响应式编程是如何实现的。

Nodes can be looked at as firing in parallel, but often they are executed serially or with limited parallelism (for example, there may be a few threads executing them). A famous example was the Manchester Dataflow Machine, which (IIRC) used a tagged data architecture to schedule execution of nodes in the graph through one or more execution units. Dataflow computing is fairly well suited to situations in which triggering computations asynchronously giving rise to cascades of computations works better than trying to have execution be governed by a clock (or clocks).

响应式编程引入了这种“执行级联”的思想，似乎以一种类似数据流的方式来考虑程序，但有一个附带条件，即一些节点与“外部世界”挂钩，当这些类似感知的节点发生变化时，执行级联就会被触发。程序的执行看起来就像一个复杂的反射弧。程序在两个刺激之间可能是基本固定的，也可能不是，也可能在两个刺激之间稳定在基本固定的状态。

"non-reactive" programming would be programming with a very different view of the flow of execution and relationship to external inputs. It's likely to be somewhat subjective, since people will likely be tempted to say anything that responds to external inputs "reacts" to them. But looking at the spirit of the thing, a program that polls an event queue at a fixed interval and dispatches any events found to functions (or threads) is less reactive (because it only attends to user input at a fixed interval). Again, it's the spirit of the thing here: one can imagine putting a polling implementation with a fast polling interval into a system at a very low level and program in a reactive fashion on top of it.

如果你想感受一下FRP，你可以从1998年的Fran教程开始，它有动画插图。对于论文，从函数反应动画开始，然后在我的主页上的出版物链接和Haskell wiki上的FRP链接上跟踪链接。

就我个人而言，我喜欢在讨论如何实施FRP之前思考它意味着什么。 (没有规范的代码是没有问题的答案，因此“甚至没有错”。) 因此，我没有像Thomas K在另一个答案(图、节点、边、触发、执行等)中那样用表示/实现术语描述FRP。 有许多可能的实现风格，但没有一种实现说明FRP是什么。

I do resonate with Laurence G's simple description that FRP is about "datatypes that represent a value 'over time' ". Conventional imperative programming captures these dynamic values only indirectly, through state and mutations. The complete history (past, present, future) has no first class representation. Moreover, only discretely evolving values can be (indirectly) captured, since the imperative paradigm is temporally discrete. In contrast, FRP captures these evolving values directly and has no difficulty with continuously evolving values.

FRP is also unusual in that it is concurrent without running afoul of the theoretical & pragmatic rats' nest that plagues imperative concurrency. Semantically, FRP's concurrency is fine-grained, determinate, and continuous. (I'm talking about meaning, not implementation. An implementation may or may not involve concurrency or parallelism.) Semantic determinacy is very important for reasoning, both rigorous and informal. While concurrency adds enormous complexity to imperative programming (due to nondeterministic interleaving), it is effortless in FRP.

那么，什么是FRP? 你可以自己发明的。 从这些想法开始:

Dynamic/evolving values (i.e., values "over time") are first class values in themselves. You can define them and combine them, pass them into & out of functions. I called these things "behaviors". Behaviors are built up out of a few primitives, like constant (static) behaviors and time (like a clock), and then with sequential and parallel combination. n behaviors are combined by applying an n-ary function (on static values), "point-wise", i.e., continuously over time. To account for discrete phenomena, have another type (family) of "events", each of which has a stream (finite or infinite) of occurrences. Each occurrence has an associated time and value. To come up with the compositional vocabulary out of which all behaviors and events can be built, play with some examples. Keep deconstructing into pieces that are more general/simple. So that you know you're on solid ground, give the whole model a compositional foundation, using the technique of denotational semantics, which just means that (a) each type has a corresponding simple & precise mathematical type of "meanings", and (b) each primitive and operator has a simple & precise meaning as a function of the meanings of the constituents. Never, ever mix implementation considerations into your exploration process. If this description is gibberish to you, consult (a) Denotational design with type class morphisms, (b) Push-pull functional reactive programming (ignoring the implementation bits), and (c) the Denotational Semantics Haskell wikibooks page. Beware that denotational semantics has two parts, from its two founders Christopher Strachey and Dana Scott: the easier & more useful Strachey part and the harder and less useful (for software design) Scott part.

如果你坚持这些原则，我希望你能得到或多或少符合FRP精神的东西。

Where did I get these principles? In software design, I always ask the same question: "what does it mean?". Denotational semantics gave me a precise framework for this question, and one that fits my aesthetics (unlike operational or axiomatic semantics, both of which leave me unsatisfied). So I asked myself what is behavior? I soon realized that the temporally discrete nature of imperative computation is an accommodation to a particular style of machine, rather than a natural description of behavior itself. The simplest precise description of behavior I can think of is simply "function of (continuous) time", so that's my model. Delightfully, this model handles continuous, deterministic concurrency with ease and grace.

正确有效地实现这个模型是一个相当大的挑战，但那是另一个故事了。

有一种简单的方法可以直观地了解它是什么样子的，那就是把你的程序想象成一个电子表格，所有的变量都是单元格。如果电子表格中的任何单元格发生变化，则引用该单元格的任何单元格也会发生变化。玻璃钢也是一样。现在想象一下，一些单元格会自己改变(或者更确切地说，是从外部世界中获取的):在GUI情况下，鼠标的位置就是一个很好的例子。

这必然会错过很多东西。当你实际使用FRP系统时，这个比喻很快就被打破了。首先，通常也会尝试建模离散事件(例如鼠标被点击)。我把这个放在这里只是为了让你们了解它是什么样的。