Java开发者指南：函数式编程精髓

4星 · 超过85%的资源需积分: 15 49 浏览量更新于2024-07-23 1 收藏 4.62MB PDF 举报

"面向Java开发者的函数式编程" 在当今的软件开发领域，函数式编程已经成为了一种重要的编程范式，对于Java开发者来说，理解和掌握函数式编程的概念和技术至关重要。本书"面向Java开发者的函数式编程"由Dean Wampler撰写，旨在帮助Java程序员理解和应用函数式编程的思想。函数式编程的核心思想是将计算视为数学函数的求值过程，强调无副作用、纯函数以及数据不可变性。在Java中，自Java 8引入Lambda表达式和Stream API以来，函数式编程得到了广泛的关注和支持。通过学习函数式编程，Java开发者可以写出更简洁、可读性更强、更易于测试的代码，并且能更好地利用多核处理器的并行计算能力。本书可能涵盖了以下关键知识点： 1. **函数式编程基础**：介绍函数式编程的基本概念，如纯函数、高阶函数、柯里化、闭包等，这些是理解函数式编程的基础。 2. **Lambda表达式**：详述Java 8中的Lambda表达式，它是实现函数式编程的关键特性，允许开发者以更简洁的方式定义匿名函数。 3. **Stream API**：探讨Stream API如何用于处理集合数据，提供函数式操作如map、filter、reduce等，使得代码更加简洁和高效。 4. **函数式数据结构**：介绍如何使用Java中的不可变集合（如`java.util.Collections.unmodifiable*`和`java.util.stream.Collectors.toUnmodifiableList`）来确保数据的不变性。 5. **函数式设计模式**：讨论函数式编程中的设计模式，如函数组合、函数工厂、函数对象和策略模式，以及如何在Java中实现这些模式。 6. **并行处理**：解释如何使用Stream API进行并行计算，提高程序的执行效率，同时注意并行处理中的问题，如数据竞争和同步控制。 7. **反应式编程**：虽然不是函数式编程的全部，但本书可能涉及反应式编程的概念，如ReactiveX库在Java中的应用，它是函数式编程在异步编程中的一个重要延伸。 8. **案例研究**：通过实际的Java项目或示例，展示如何在日常开发中应用函数式编程，帮助读者将理论知识转化为实践技能。 9. **工具和库**：介绍一些流行的Java函数式编程库，如Vavr、Scala的Functional Java库，以及如何与Java 8的内置功能结合使用。通过阅读本书，Java开发者能够深化对函数式编程的理解，提升编程技巧，从而编写出更加高效、可靠的代码。此外，函数式编程的思维方式也能帮助开发者解决复杂问题，提高代码的可维护性和可测试性。

CHAPTER 1

Why Functional Programming?

A few years ago, when many developers started talking about functional programming

(FP) as the best way to approach concurrency, I decided it was time to learn more and

judge for myself. I expected to learn some new ideas, but I assumed I would still use

object-oriented programming (OOP) as my primary approach to software develop-

ment. I was wrong.

As I learned about functional programming, I found good ideas for implementing con-

currency, as I expected, but I also found that it brought new clarity to my thinking

about the design of types

and functions. It also allowed me to write more concise code.

Functional programming made me rethink where module boundaries should go and

how to make those modules better for reuse. I found that the functional programming

community was building innovative and more powerful type systems that help enforce

correctness. I also concluded that functional programming is a better fit for many of

the unique challenges of our time, like working with massive data sets and remaining

agile as requirements change ever more rapidly and schedules grow ever shorter.

Instead of remaining an OOP developer who tosses in some FP for seasoning, today I

write functional programs that use objects judiciously. You could say that I came to FP

for the concurrency, but I stayed for the “paradigm shift.”

The funny thing is, we’ve been here before. A very similar phenomenon occurred in

the 80s when OOP began to go mainstream. Objects are an ideal way of representing

graphical widgets, so OOP was a natural fit for developing Graphical User Interfaces

(GUIs). However, once people started using objects, they found them to be an intuitive

way to represent many “domains.” You could model the problem domain in objects,

then put the same object model in the code! Even implementation details, like various

forms of input and output, seemed ideal for object modeling.

But let’s be clear, both FP and OOP are tools, not panaceas. Each has advantages and

disadvantages. It’s easy to stick with the tried and true, even when there might be a

better way available. Even so, it’s hard to believe that objects, which have worked so

* I’ll occasionally use type and class interchangeably, but they aren’t synonyms. See the definitions in Glossary.

well in the past, could be any less valuable today, isn’t it? For me, my growing interest

in functional programming isn’t a repudiation of objects, which have proven benefits.

Rather, it’s a recognition that the drawbacks of objects are harder to ignore when faced

with the programming challenges of today. The times are different than they were when

objects were ascendant several decades ago.

Here, in brief, is why I became a functional programmer and why I believe you should

learn about it, too. For me, functional programming offers the best approach to meet

the following challenges, which I face every day.

I Have to Be Good at Writing Concurrent Programs

It used to be that a few of the “smart guys” on the team wrote most of the concurrent

code, using multithreaded concurrency, which requires carefully synchronized access

to shared, mutable state. Occasionally everyone would get a midnight call to debug

some nasty concurrency bug that appeared in production. But most of the time, most

of the developers could ignore concurrency.

Today, even your phone has several CPU cores (or your next one will). Learning how

to write robust concurrent software is no longer optional. Fortunately, functional pro-

gramming gives you the right principles to think about concurrency and it has spawned

several higher-level concurrency abstractions that make the job far easier.

Multithreaded programming, requiring synchronized access to shared,

mutable state, is the assembly language of concurrency.

Most Programs Are Just Data Management Problems

I work a lot with big data these days, mostly using the Apache Hadoop ecosystem of

tools, built around MapReduce [Hadoop]. When you are ingesting terabytes of new

data each day, when you need to cleanse and store that data, then do analysis on the

petabytes of accumulated data, you simply can’t afford the overhead of objects. You

want very efficient data structures and operations on that data, with minimal overhead.

The old agile catch phrase, What’s the simplest thing that could possibly work?, takes on

new meaning.

I started thinking about how we manage smaller data sets, say in a typical IT application

backed by a database. If objects add overhead for big data problems, what about the

overhead for smaller data problems? Performance and storage size are less likely to be

issues in this case, but team agility is a pervasive issue. How does a small team remain

nimble when enhancing an IT application, year after year? How does the team keep the

code base as concise as possible?

2 | Chapter 1: Why Functional Programming?

I’ve come to believe that faithfully representing the domain object model in code should

be questioned. Object-relational mapping (ORM) and similar forms of object middle-

ware add overhead for transforming relational data into objects, moving those objects

around the application, then ultimately transforming them back to relational data for

updates. Of course, all this extra code has to be tested and maintained.

I know this practice arose in part because we love objects and we often hate relational

data, or maybe we just hate working with relational databases. (I speak from personal

experience.) However, relational data, such as the result sets for queries, are really just

collections that can be manipulated in a functional way. Would it be better to work

directly with that data?

I’ll show you how working directly with more fundamental collections of data mini-

mizes the overhead of working with object models, while still avoiding duplication and

promoting reuse.

Functional Programming Is More Modular

Years ago, I had a large client that struggled to get work done with their bloated code

base. Their competition was running circles around them. One day I saw something

that captured their problems in a nutshell. I walked by a five-foot partition wall with a

UML diagram that covered the wall. I remember one class in particular, a Customer

class. It stretched the whole five feet. This was a failure of modularity, specifically in

finding the correct levels of abstraction and decomposition. The Customer class had

become a grab bag of everything anyone might associate with one of their customers.

In the late 1980s, when object-oriented programming was on the rise, many people

hoped that objects would finally solve the problem of building reusable components

that you plug together to build applications, greatly reducing costs and development

times. This vision seems so reasonable that it is easy to overlook the fact that it didn’t

turn out as well as we hoped. Most of the successful examples of reusable libraries are

platforms that defined their own standards that everyone had to follow. Examples in-

clude the JDK, the Spring Framework, and the Eclipse plugin API. Even most of the

third-party “component libraries” we might use (for example, Apache Commons) have

their own custom APIs that we must conform to. For the rest of the code we need, we

still rewrite a lot of it project after project. Hence, object-oriented software development

isn’t the “component assembly” we hoped would emerge.

The nearly limitless flexibility of objects actually undermines the potential for reuse,

because there are few standards for how objects should interconnect and we can’t agree

on even basic names of things! Systems with greater constraints are actually more

modular, which is a paradox. The book Design Rules: The Power of Modularity [Bald-

win2000] demonstrates that the explosive growth of the PC industry was made possible

when IBM created a de facto standard for the personal computer hardware architecture.

Because of standardized buses for peripherals and connectors, it enabled innovators to

Functional Programming Is More Modular | 3

create new, better, and cheaper drives, mice, monitors, motherboards, etc. Digital

electronics is itself a great example of a modular system. Each wire carries only a 0 or

1 signal, yet when you join them together in groups of 8, 16, 32, and 64, you can build

up protocol layers that make possible all the wonderful things that we’ve come to do

with computers.

There are no similar standards for object-based components. Various attempts like

CORBA and COM had modest success, but ultimately failed for the same basic reasons,

that objects are at the wrong level of abstraction. Concepts like “customer” are rarely

new, yet we can’t find a way to stop inventing a new representation for them in every

new project, because each project brings its own context and requirements.

However, if we notice that an object is fundamentally just an aggregation of data, then

we can see a way to define better standardized abstractions at lower levels than objects,

analogous to digit circuits. These standards are the fundamental collections like list,

map, and set, along with “primitive” types like numbers and few well-defined domain

concepts (e.g., Money in a financial application).

A further aid to modularity is the nature of functions in functional programming, which

avoid side effects, making them free of dependencies on other objects and therefore

easier to reuse in many contexts.

The net result is that a functional program defines abstractions where they are more

useful, easier to reuse, compose, and also test.

Any arbitrarily complex object can be decomposed into “atomic” values

(like primitives) and collections containing those values and other

collections.

I Have to Work Faster and Faster

Development cycles are going asymptotically to zero length. That sounds crazy, espe-

cially if you started professional programming when I did, when projects typically lasted

months, even years. However, today there are plenty of Internet sites that deploy new

code several times a day and all of us are feeling the pressure to get work done more

quickly, without sacrificing quality, of course.

When schedules were longer, it made more sense to model your domain carefully and

to implement that domain in code. If you made a mistake, it would take months to

correct with a new release. Today, for most projects, understanding the domain pre-

cisely is less important than delivering some value quickly. Our understanding of the

domain will change rapidly anyway, as we and our customers discover new insights

with each deployment. If we misunderstand some aspect of the domain, we can fix

those mistakes quickly when we do frequent deployments.

4 | Chapter 1: Why Functional Programming?

剩余87页未读，继续阅读

ml7000

粉丝: 0
资源: 26

Java开发者指南：函数式编程精髓

Java-Java函数式编程教程

JavaScript函数式编程.pdf

java8函数式编程（csdn）————程序.pdf

Scala主要是学习哪些语言

scala笔记尚硅谷

简述scala和JAVA的区别

尚硅谷大数据技术之scala.docx

kotlin和java有什么区别

java和koTlin区别

kafka使用的语言是

最新资源