我最近才发现函数式编程风格，我相信它会减少开发工作，使代码更易于阅读，并使软件更易于维护。然而，问题是我很难说服任何人。
嗯，最近我有机会就如何减少软件开发和维护工作进行演讲，我想向他们介绍函数式编程的概念以及它如何使团队受益。我的想法是向人们展示两组完全相同的代码，一组以非常命令的方式编码，另一组以非常函数式的方式编码，以表明函数式编程可以使代码更短、更容易理解和因此可维护。除了 Luca Bolognese 著名的平方和示例之外，还有这样的示例吗？
最佳答案
I've just recently discovered the functional programming style [...] Well, recently I was given a chance to give a talk on how to reduce software development efforts, and I wanted to introduce the concept of functional programming.
如果您刚刚接触函数式编程，我不建议您尝试就该主题发表权威言论。我知道在我学习 F# 的前 6 个月里，我的所有代码都只是 C#，语法有点笨拙。然而，在那段时间之后，我能够以惯用的函数式风格编写出始终如一的好代码。
我建议您也这样做:WAITING 6 个月左右，直到函数式编程风格更加自然，然后再进行演示。
I'm trying to illustrate the benefits of functional programming, and I had the idea of showing people 2 set of code that does the same thing, one coded in a very imperative way, and the other in a very functional way, to show that functional programming can made code way shorter, easier to understand and thus maintain. Is there such example, beside the famous sum of squares example by Luca Bolognese?
我向我所在地区的 .NET 用户组做了 F# 演示，我组中的许多人都对 F# 的模式匹配印象深刻。具体来说，我展示了如何在 C# 和 F# 中遍历抽象语法树:
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public interface IExprVisitor<t>
{
t Visit(TrueExpr expr);
t Visit(And expr);
t Visit(Nand expr);
t Visit(Or expr);
t Visit(Xor expr);
t Visit(Not expr);
}
public abstract class Expr
{
public abstract t Accept<t>(IExprVisitor<t> visitor);
}
public abstract class UnaryOp : Expr
{
public Expr First { get; private set; }
public UnaryOp(Expr first)
{
this.First = first;
}
}
public abstract class BinExpr : Expr
{
public Expr First { get; private set; }
public Expr Second { get; private set; }
public BinExpr(Expr first, Expr second)
{
this.First = first;
this.Second = second;
}
}
public class TrueExpr : Expr
{
public override t Accept<t>(IExprVisitor<t> visitor)
{
return visitor.Visit(this);
}
}
public class And : BinExpr
{
public And(Expr first, Expr second) : base(first, second) { }
public override t Accept<t>(IExprVisitor<t> visitor)
{
return visitor.Visit(this);
}
}
public class Nand : BinExpr
{
public Nand(Expr first, Expr second) : base(first, second) { }
public override t Accept<t>(IExprVisitor<t> visitor)
{
return visitor.Visit(this);
}
}
public class Or : BinExpr
{
public Or(Expr first, Expr second) : base(first, second) { }
public override t Accept<t>(IExprVisitor<t> visitor)
{
return visitor.Visit(this);
}
}
public class Xor : BinExpr
{
public Xor(Expr first, Expr second) : base(first, second) { }
public override t Accept<t>(IExprVisitor<t> visitor)
{
return visitor.Visit(this);
}
}
public class Not : UnaryOp
{
public Not(Expr first) : base(first) { }
public override t Accept<t>(IExprVisitor<t> visitor)
{
return visitor.Visit(this);
}
}
public class EvalVisitor : IExprVisitor<bool>
{
public bool Visit(TrueExpr expr)
{
return true;
}
public bool Visit(And expr)
{
return Eval(expr.First) && Eval(expr.Second);
}
public bool Visit(Nand expr)
{
return !(Eval(expr.First) && Eval(expr.Second));
}
public bool Visit(Or expr)
{
return Eval(expr.First) || Eval(expr.Second);
}
public bool Visit(Xor expr)
{
return Eval(expr.First) ^ Eval(expr.Second);
}
public bool Visit(Not expr)
{
return !Eval(expr.First);
}
public bool Eval(Expr expr)
{
return expr.Accept(this);
}
}
public class PrettyPrintVisitor : IExprVisitor<string>
{
public string Visit(TrueExpr expr)
{
return "True";
}
public string Visit(And expr)
{
return string.Format("({0}) AND ({1})", expr.First.Accept(this), expr.Second.Accept(this));
}
public string Visit(Nand expr)
{
return string.Format("({0}) NAND ({1})", expr.First.Accept(this), expr.Second.Accept(this));
}
public string Visit(Or expr)
{
return string.Format("({0}) OR ({1})", expr.First.Accept(this), expr.Second.Accept(this));
}
public string Visit(Xor expr)
{
return string.Format("({0}) XOR ({1})", expr.First.Accept(this), expr.Second.Accept(this));
}
public string Visit(Not expr)
{
return string.Format("Not ({0})", expr.First.Accept(this));
}
public string Pretty(Expr expr)
{
return expr.Accept(this).Replace("(True)", "True");
}
}
class Program
{
static void TestLogicalEquivalence(Expr first, Expr second)
{
var prettyPrinter = new PrettyPrintVisitor();
var eval = new EvalVisitor();
var evalFirst = eval.Eval(first);
var evalSecond = eval.Eval(second);
Console.WriteLine("Testing expressions:");
Console.WriteLine(" First = {0}", prettyPrinter.Pretty(first));
Console.WriteLine(" Eval(First): {0}", evalFirst);
Console.WriteLine(" Second = {0}", prettyPrinter.Pretty(second));
Console.WriteLine(" Eval(Second): {0}", evalSecond);;
Console.WriteLine(" Equivalent? {0}", evalFirst == evalSecond);
Console.WriteLine();
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var P = new TrueExpr();
var Q = new Not(new TrueExpr());
TestLogicalEquivalence(P, Q);
TestLogicalEquivalence(
new Not(P),
new Nand(P, P));
TestLogicalEquivalence(
new And(P, Q),
new Nand(new Nand(P, Q), new Nand(P, Q)));
TestLogicalEquivalence(
new Or(P, Q),
new Nand(new Nand(P, P), new Nand(Q, Q)));
TestLogicalEquivalence(
new Xor(P, Q),
new Nand(
new Nand(P, new Nand(P, Q)),
new Nand(Q, new Nand(P, Q)))
);
Console.ReadKey(true);
}
}
}
上面的代码是用惯用的 C# 风格编写的。它使用访问者模式而不是类型测试来保证类型安全。这大约是 218 LOC。
这是 F# 版本:
#light
open System
type expr =
| True
| And of expr * expr
| Nand of expr * expr
| Or of expr * expr
| Xor of expr * expr
| Not of expr
let (^^) p q = not(p && q) && (p || q) // makeshift xor operator
let rec eval = function
| True -> true
| And(e1, e2) -> eval(e1) && eval(e2)
| Nand(e1, e2) -> not(eval(e1) && eval(e2))
| Or(e1, e2) -> eval(e1) || eval(e2)
| Xor(e1, e2) -> eval(e1) ^^ eval(e2)
| Not(e1) -> not(eval(e1))
let rec prettyPrint e =
let rec loop = function
| True -> "True"
| And(e1, e2) -> sprintf "(%s) AND (%s)" (loop e1) (loop e2)
| Nand(e1, e2) -> sprintf "(%s) NAND (%s)" (loop e1) (loop e2)
| Or(e1, e2) -> sprintf "(%s) OR (%s)" (loop e1) (loop e2)
| Xor(e1, e2) -> sprintf "(%s) XOR (%s)" (loop e1) (loop e2)
| Not(e1) -> sprintf "NOT (%s)" (loop e1)
(loop e).Replace("(True)", "True")
let testLogicalEquivalence e1 e2 =
let eval1, eval2 = eval e1, eval e2
printfn "Testing expressions:"
printfn " First = %s" (prettyPrint e1)
printfn " eval(e1): %b" eval1
printfn " Second = %s" (prettyPrint e2)
printfn " eval(e2): %b" eval2
printfn " Equilalent? %b" (eval1 = eval2)
printfn ""
let p, q = True, Not True
let tests =
[
p, q;
Not(p), Nand(p, p);
And(p, q),
Nand(Nand(p, q), Nand(p, q));
Or(p, q),
Nand(Nand(p, p), Nand(q, q));
Xor(p, q),
Nand(
Nand(p, Nand(p, q)),
Nand(q, Nand(p, q))
)
]
tests |> Seq.iter (fun (e1, e2) -> testLogicalEquivalence e1 e2)
Console.WriteLine("(press any key)")
Console.ReadKey(true) |> ignore
这是 65 LOC。由于它使用模式匹配而不是访问者模式，我们不会失去任何类型安全性，并且代码非常易于阅读。
任何类型的符号处理在 F# 中比在 C# 中编写要容易几个数量级。
[编辑添加:]哦，模式匹配不仅仅是访问者模式的替代品，它还允许您匹配数据的形状。例如，这里有一个将 Nand 转换为它们的等价物的函数:
let rec simplify = function
| Nand(p, q) when p = q -> Not(simplify p)
| Nand(Nand(p1, q1), Nand(p2, q2))
when equivalent [p1; p2] && equivalent [q1; q2]
-> And(simplify p1, simplify q1)
| Nand(Nand(p1, p2), Nand(q1, q2))
when equivalent [p1; p2] && equivalent [q1; q2]
-> Or(simplify p1, simplify q1)
| Nand(Nand(p1, Nand(p2, q1)), Nand(q2, Nand(p3, q3)))
when equivalent [p1; p2; p3] && equivalent [q1; q2; q3]
-> Xor(simplify p1, simplify q1)
| Nand(p, q) -> Nand(simplify p, simplify q)
| True -> True
| And(p, q) -> And(simplify p, simplify q)
| Or(p, q) -> Or(simplify p, simplify q)
| Xor(p, q) -> Xor(simplify p, simplify q)
| Not(Not p) -> simplify p
| Not(p) -> Not(simplify p)
在 C# 中根本不可能简洁地编写这段代码。
关于c# - 什么任务最适合用函数式编程风格完成？，我们在Stack Overflow上找到一个类似的问题： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/694651/