自从我去年开始学习f#和OCaml以来，我已经阅读了大量的文章，这些文章坚持认为设计模式(尤其是Java中的)是命令式语言中缺失特性的变通方法。我发现的一篇文章给出了相当有力的主张:
Most people I've met have read
the Design Patterns book by the Gang of
Four (GoF). Any self respecting programmer
will tell you that the book is
language agnostic and the patterns
apply to software engineering in
general, regardless of which language
you use. This is a noble claim.
Unfortunately it is far removed from
the truth.
Functional languages are extremely
expressive. In a functional language
one does not need design patterns
because the language is likely so high
level, you end up programming in
concepts that eliminate design
patterns all together.
函数式编程(FP)的主要特性包括函数作为一类值、curry化、不可变值等。在我看来，OO设计模式是否接近这些特性并不明显。
此外，在支持OOP的函数式语言(如f#和OCaml)中，使用这些语言的程序员显然会使用与其他OOP语言相同的设计模式。事实上，现在我每天都在使用f#和OCaml，我在这些语言中使用的模式与我在Java中使用的模式之间没有明显的区别。
函数式编程消除了对面向对象设计模式的需求这一说法是否属实?如果是这样的话，你能发布或链接到一个典型的OOP设计模式的例子及其功能对等物吗?
正如公认的答案所说，OOP和FP都有其特定的模式。
然而，有一些模式是非常常见的，我能想到的所有编程平台都应该有。以下是一个(不完整的)列表:
Adapter. I can hardly think of a useful programming platform which is so comprehensive (and self-fulfilled) that it does not need to talk to the world. If it is going to do so, an adapter is definitely needed.
Façade. Any programming platforms that can handle big source code should be able to modularise. If you were to create a module for other parts of the program, you will want to hide the "dirty" parts of the code and give it a nice interface.
Interpreter. In general, any program is just doing two things: parse input and print output. Mouse inputs need to be parsed, and window widgets need to be printed out. Therefore, having an embedded interpreter gives the program additional power to customise things.
另外，我注意到在典型的FP语言Haskell中，有一些类似于GoF模式的东西，但名称不同。在我看来，这表明它们存在，因为在FP和OOP语言中都有一些共同的问题需要解决。
单子转换器和装饰器。前者用于向现有的单子中添加额外的能力，后者用于向现有的对象中添加额外的能力。
