最近我读了很多关于函数式编程的东西,大部分我都能理解,但有一件事我就是搞不懂,那就是无状态编码。在我看来,通过删除可变状态来简化编程就像通过删除仪表盘来“简化”一辆汽车:最终产品可能更简单,但希望它能与最终用户交互。
几乎我能想到的每个用户应用程序都将状态作为核心概念。如果你写了一个文档(或一个SO post),状态会随着每一个新的输入而改变。或者如果你玩电子游戏,会有大量的状态变量,从所有角色的位置开始,这些角色往往会不断移动。如果不跟踪不断变化的值,您怎么可能做任何有用的事情呢?
每次我发现一些讨论这个问题的东西,它都是用真正的技术函数语言写的,假设我没有浓厚的FP背景。有谁知道如何向那些对命令式编码有很好的、扎实的理解,但在函数方面完全是n00b的人解释这一点吗?
编辑:到目前为止,一堆回复似乎试图让我相信不可变值的优点。我懂你的意思。这很有道理。我不明白的是,在没有可变变量的情况下,如何跟踪必须不断变化的值。
For highly interactive applications such as games, Functional Reactive Programming is your friend: if you can formulate the properties of your game's world as time-varying values (and/or event streams), you are ready! These formulae will be sometimes even more natural and intent-revealing than mutating a state, e.g. for a moving ball, you can directly use the well-known law x = v * t. And what's better, the game's rules written such way compose better than object-oriented abstractions. For example, in this case, the ball's speed can be also a time-varying value, which depends on the event stream consisting of the ball's collisions. For more concrete design considerations, see Making Games in Elm.
For highly interactive applications such as games, Functional Reactive Programming is your friend: if you can formulate the properties of your game's world as time-varying values (and/or event streams), you are ready! These formulae will be sometimes even more natural and intent-revealing than mutating a state, e.g. for a moving ball, you can directly use the well-known law x = v * t. And what's better, the game's rules written such way compose better than object-oriented abstractions. For example, in this case, the ball's speed can be also a time-varying value, which depends on the event stream consisting of the ball's collisions. For more concrete design considerations, see Making Games in Elm.