Functional programming avoids state and emphasizes functionality. There's never any such thing as no state, though the state might actually be something that's immutable or baked into the architecture of what you're working with. Consider the difference between a static web server that just loads up files off the filesystem versus a program that implements a Rubik's cube. The former is going to be implemented in terms of functions designed to turn a request into a file path request into a response from the contents of that file. Virtually no state is needed beyond a tiny bit of configuration (the filesystem 'state' is really outside the scope of the program. The program works the same way regardless of what state the files are in). In the latter though, you need to model the cube and your program implementation of how operations on that cube change its state.

事实上，即使在没有可变状态的语言中，也很容易有一些看起来像可变状态的东西。

Consider a function with type s -> (a, s). Translating from Haskell syntax, it means a function which takes one parameter of type "s" and returns a pair of values, of types "a" and "s". If s is the type of our state, this function takes one state and returns a new state, and possibly a value (you can always return "unit" aka (), which is sort of equivalent to "void" in C/C++, as the "a" type). If you chain several calls of functions with types like this (getting the state returned from one function and passing it to the next), you have "mutable" state (in fact you are in each function creating a new state and abandoning the old one).

It might be easier to understand if you imagine the mutable state as the "space" where your program is executing, and then think of the time dimension. At instant t1, the "space" is in a certain condition (say for example some memory location has value 5). At a later instant t2, it is in a different condition (for example that memory location now has value 10). Each of these time "slices" is a state, and it is immutable (you cannot go back in time to change them). So, from this point of view, you went from the full spacetime with a time arrow (your mutable state) to a set of slices of spacetime (several immutable states), and your program is just treating each slice as a value and computing each of them as a function applied to the previous one.

好吧，也许这并不容易理解:-)

It might seem inneficient to explicitly represent the whole program state as a value, which has to be created only to be discarded the next instant (just after a new one is created). For some algorithms it might be natural, but when it is not, there is another trick. Instead of a real state, you can use a fake state which is nothing more than a marker (let's call the type of this fake state State#). This fake state exists from the point of view of the language, and is passed like any other value, but the compiler completely omits it when generating the machine code. It only serves to mark the sequence of execution.

举个例子，假设编译器给了我们以下函数:

readRef :: Ref a -> State# -> (a, State#)
writeRef :: Ref a -> a -> State# -> (a, State#)

从这些类似haskell的声明中转换，readRef接收到类似于指向“a”类型值和假状态的指针或句柄的东西，并返回由第一个形参和新的假状态指向的“a”类型值。writeRef类似，但是改变了所指向的值。

If you call readRef and then pass it the fake state returned by writeRef (perhaps with other calls to unrelated functions in the middle; these state values create a "chain" of function calls), it will return the value written. You can call writeRef again with the same pointer/handle and it will write to the same memory location — but, since conceptually it is returning a new (fake) state, the (fake) state is still imutable (a new one has been "created"). The compiler will call the functions in the order it would have to call them if there was a real state variable which had to be computed, but the only state which there is is the full (mutable) state of the real hardware.

(了解Haskell的人会注意到我简化了很多东西，并省略了一些重要的细节。对于那些想要看到更多细节的人，看看mtl中的Control.Monad.State，以及ST和IO(又名ST RealWorld)单子。

You might wonder why doing it in such a roundabout way (instead of simply having mutable state in the language). The real advantage is that you have reified your program's state. What before was implicit (your program state was global, allowing for things like action at a distance) is now explicit. Functions which do not receive and return the state cannot modify it or be influenced by it; they are "pure". Even better, you can have separate state threads, and with a bit of type magic, they can be used to embed an imperative computation within a pure one, without making it impure (the ST monad in Haskell is the one normally used for this trick; the State# I mentioned above is in fact GHC's State# s, used by its implementation of the ST and IO monads).

除了别人给出的很好的答案，想想Java中的Integer和String类。这些类的实例是不可变的，但这并不意味着仅仅因为它们的实例不可更改，这些类就毫无用处。不可变性给了你一定的安全性。您知道，如果使用String或Integer实例作为Map的键，则该键不能更改。将其与Java中的Date类进行比较:

Date date = new Date();
mymap.put(date, date.toString());
// Some time later:
date.setTime(new Date().getTime());

你已经无声地改变了地图中的一个键!使用不可变对象(如在函数式编程中)要干净得多。更容易推断会发生什么副作用——没有!这意味着程序员更容易，优化器也更容易。

注意，说函数式编程没有“状态”有点误导，可能是造成混淆的原因。它肯定没有“可变状态”，但它仍然可以有被操纵的值;它们只是不能就地更改(例如，您必须从旧值创建新值)。

这是一个严重的过度简化，但是想象一下你有一个OO语言，其中类上的所有属性只在构造函数中设置一次，所有方法都是静态函数。您仍然可以通过让方法获取包含计算所需的所有值的对象，然后返回带有结果的新对象(甚至可能是同一对象的新实例)来执行几乎任何计算。

将现有代码转换为这种范式可能“很难”，但这是因为它确实需要一种完全不同的思考代码的方式。但作为一个副作用，在大多数情况下，您可以免费获得大量并行机会。

附录:(关于如何跟踪需要更改的值的编辑) 当然，它们会被存储在一个不可变的数据结构中……

这不是一个建议的“解决方案”，但最简单的方法是，你可以将这些不可变的值存储到一个类似map(字典/哈希表)的结构中，以“变量名”为键。

显然，在实际解决方案中，您应该使用更明智的方法，但这确实表明，如果其他方法都不起作用，那么在最坏情况下，您可以使用这样一个贯穿调用树的映射来“模拟”可变状态。

使用一些创造性和模式匹配，无状态游戏被创造出来:

迷宫游戏 迷宫游戏2 CSSPlay:井字 纯CSS一字棋 CSSPlay:乒乓球 CSSPlay:乒乓球 CSSPlay:警察与强盗 CSSPlay: Whack-a-Rat CSS3 Pong:与CSS有关的疯狂事情

以及滚动演示:

随机英雄 动画模拟SVG时钟 动画SVG摆 动画SVG赛车手 CSS3:造雪

和可视化:

XSLT 曼德尔布洛特

你不可能有一种有用的纯函数式语言。总会有一定程度的可变性需要处理，IO就是一个例子。

将函数式语言视为您使用的另一种工具。它对某些事情有好处，但对其他事情没有好处。你给出的游戏例子可能不是使用函数语言的最佳方式，至少屏幕会有一个可变的状态，你不能用FP做任何事情。使用FP思考问题的方式和解决问题的类型将不同于使用命令式编程所习惯的方式。