Possible Duplicate:
Which problems domains are more suited to functional programming solutions

I've been reading about functional programming. I've been using mostly C#.net recently, and I would like to know of a good real-world example of where a functional language such as Lisp or F# would be a clearly superior tool for getting a job done.

  • 1
    Chances are you're already using a lot of functional programming in your C# already. LINQ, essentially, is a functional programming. It's up to you to decide on how relevant it is to the real world.
    – SK-logic
    Nov 1, 2011 at 18:21
  • Strictly speaking, (Common) Lisp is not a functional language. Nov 1, 2011 at 18:58

4 Answers 4


I find functional languages better because they tend to demand very little ceremony for the functionality they provide. For example....let's take every number in a list of integers add one to the number, and then sum them.

In Clojure:

(reduce + (map inc mylist))

In C# (functional style):

result = mylist.Select(i => i + 1).Sum();

In C# (imperative style):

int sum = 0; 
foreach (int i in mylist)
   sum += (i + 1);

Let's look at the imperative style...we have to create a accumulator (sum), a locally scoped variable (i), and we also have to be explicit in how we enumerate our loop. What takes a single line of code, and is extremely readable in a functional language has ballooned into 5 lines of C# and it's not nearly as readable.

So after studying both imperative and functional languages for several years, I've simply come to the conclusion that I would rather use less work to accomplish more. Since switching to Clojure for all my hobby projects I've found that I can suddenly accomplish much more with less code.

So back to your question, I never find myself asking "why would I use a functional language?", but instead, "why wouldn't I use a functional language?". Sometimes it requires thinking about the problem in a different way, but I find that my functional code is more concise, elegant, and readable than the code I'm forced to write in C#.

For context, I code in C# 8+ hours a day at work, and code around 1-2 hours in Clojure every night.

  • +1: I never find myself asking "why would I use a functional language?", but instead, "why wouldn't I use a functional language?"
    – scrwtp
    Jun 29, 2014 at 9:43
  • 6
    "concise" = yes, "elegant" = maybe, "readable" = not really.
    – swdev
    Oct 21, 2015 at 7:45
  • On a minor note, C# code can be just mylist.Sum(i => i + 1); which I dont think anyone can argue is less readable than the given Clojure version :)
    – nawfal
    Oct 21, 2015 at 21:58
  • 2
    @swdev well that is obviously highly subjective, and above all, mostly depending on what you're used to. If you only ever worked in C# 1.0 in all your life, then yes, a data transformation stream using LINQ will look weird, but that's only because it's new syntax and an API you haven't used before. The basic map/fold/etc operators that are popular in functional languages are as universally recognized as int x = 1; is in C. What IS an objective fact though, is that the functional code ONLY describes the algorithm in terms of it's semantic components, there's little or no boilerplate.
    – sara
    Jul 18, 2016 at 15:58

Functional programming is commonly used in academics. Some would argue that it is superior in teaching. It also is good for massive concurrent systems.

Most of what you're asking can be answered by several previous questions:

Lisp usages: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/794450/what-is-lisp-used-for-today-and-where-do-you-think-its-going

F# usage: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36756/f-what-are-you-using-it-for

Haskell usage: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1604790/what-is-haskell-actually-useful-for

Erlang usage: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1636455/where-is-erlang-used-and-why


Many of the functional languages were designed for use in high-uptime systems. Erlang, for example, is the language behind the logic of most of our cell phone carrier systems (those built on Ericsson nodes, at least). Those systems are expected to provide very high levels of availability (we're talking Nine Nines, 99.9999999% uptime; that's something like 30 milliseconds per year of allowable downtime) while at the same time remaining modular and highly scalable. You do that with some of the features built into many functional languages, like hot-swappable code (no need to recompile DLLs and restart the system; just put the new package in there and the next call into that package will be with the new code).

Apart from that, many ideas in computing are most easily expressed functionally. Functional programming is inherently recursive and highly parallelizable, so tasks that are best designed in such ways lend themselves well to functional languages. Parallelization in particular is becoming more and more important as the power of a CPU is being increased by adding execution units to the chip instead of increasing clocks. File processing and other ETL tasks are definable functionally and benefit greatly from throwing more threads at the problem.

  • 8
    I don't see how anything from the first paragraph is related to functional programming.
    – back2dos
    Nov 1, 2011 at 17:45
  • Not so much the concept of functional programming, but the languages and runtimes themselves. I'm sure you could put hot-swapping into the .NET runtime including C#, but it simply isn't there. Part of the difference is inherent in the requirements of a functional runtime, and is thus inherent in functional programming.
    – KeithS
    Nov 1, 2011 at 18:03
  • Nine Nines is 30 milliseconds a year of downtime
    – user7519
    Nov 1, 2011 at 18:44
  • 2
    Immutable state models make hot-code swapping almost trivial, vs trying to do that with Java or .Net next to impossible or so restrictive to not be useful.
    – user7519
    Nov 1, 2011 at 19:32
  • 1
    @Jarrod: With no restarts and no upgrades, that isn't hard: erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/243/…
    – Jonas
    Nov 1, 2011 at 19:43

Functional programming is superior across the board. I have not found a case where a functional programming language, or a more functional style in an imperative language, is a bad solution to a problem.

It’s simply a lot easier to get things done when the language is more expressive. It’s not about terseness—though that is a side effect—but rather about being able to understand and reason about more of your program at once. In a functional language, you don’t always have to write a description of how to compute what you want—you can write a description of what you actually want.

Using a functional programming language encourages you to think about your program in terms of data flow and computation, rather than state and mutation. It’s so much easier to solve problems functionally. And isn’t solving problems exactly what programmers are supposed to do?

  • 1
    "Functional programming is superior across the board." - Can you recommend any good functional GUI Framework? e.g. a GUI frameworks that uses immutable datastructures.
    – Jonas
    Nov 1, 2011 at 18:03
  • 1
    @Jonas: Disregarding whatever you might mean by “good”, the fact that no one has written a framework you consider good does not mean that such a framework cannot be written, nor does it mean that a framework does not exist that’s good by other standards than yours. Besides, there are too many GUI libraries for Haskell.
    – Jon Purdy
    Nov 1, 2011 at 20:24
  • 1
    @Malfist: A true haskell master will write his programs on paper, as well as the formal proof of their correctness ;)
    – back2dos
    Nov 1, 2011 at 21:11
  • 1
    @Jonas, google for "functional reactive programming".
    – SK-logic
    Nov 1, 2011 at 21:16
  • 1
    @Jonas: So lack of libraries discounts a whole paradigm. I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
    – Jon Purdy
    Nov 1, 2011 at 21:25

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.