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

For highly interactive applications such as games, Functional Reactive Programming is your friend: if you can formulate the properties of your game's world as time-varying values (and/or event streams), you are ready! These formulae will be sometimes even more natural and intent-revealing than mutating a state, e.g. for a moving ball, you can directly use the well-known law x = v * t. And what's better, the game's rules written such way compose better than object-oriented abstractions. For example, in this case, the ball's speed can be also a time-varying value, which depends on the event stream consisting of the ball's collisions. For more concrete design considerations, see Making Games in Elm.

下面是如何在没有可变状态的情况下编写代码:不是将变化状态放入可变变量中，而是将其放入函数的参数中。不写循环，而是写递归函数。比如这段命令式代码:

f_imperative(y) {
  local x;
  x := e;
  while p(x, y) do
    x := g(x, y)
  return h(x, y)
}

变成这样的函数代码(类似scheme的语法):

(define (f-functional y) 
  (letrec (
     (f-helper (lambda (x y)
                  (if (p x y) 
                     (f-helper (g x y) y)
                     (h x y)))))
     (f-helper e y)))

或者这个Haskellish代码

f_fun y = h x_final y
   where x_initial = e
         x_final   = loop x_initial
         loop x = if p x y then loop (g x y) else x

至于为什么函数式程序员喜欢这样做(你没有问)，你的程序中无状态的部分越多，就有越多的方法可以在不中断的情况下将这些部分组合在一起。无状态范式的强大之处在于它本身不具有无状态性(或纯粹性)，而在于它使您能够编写强大的、可重用的函数并将它们组合起来。

你可以在John Hughes的论文Why Functional Programming Matters中找到一个很好的教程，里面有很多例子。

只是做同一件事的不同方式。

Consider a simple example such as adding the numbers 3, 5, and 10. Imagine thinking about doing that by first changing the value of 3 by adding 5 to it, then adding 10 to that "3", then outputting the current value of "3" (18). This seems patently ridiculous, but it is in essence the way that state-based imperative programming is often done. Indeed, you can have many different "3"s that have the value 3, yet are different. All of this seems odd, because we have been so ingrained with the, quite enormously sensible, idea that the numbers are immutable.

现在，当您将值设置为不可变时，考虑添加3、5和10。3加5得到另一个值8，然后再加10得到另一个值18。

这是做同样事情的等价方法。所有必要的信息都存在于这两种方法中，只是形式不同。其中，信息以状态的形式存在，并存在于改变状态的规则中。在另一种情况下，信息存在于不可变数据和函数定义中。

简单的回答是:你不能。

那么不变性有什么好大惊小怪的呢?

If you're well-versed in imperative language, then you know that "globals are bad". Why? Because they introduce (or have the potential to introduce) some very hard-to-untangle dependencies in your code. And dependencies are not good; you want your code to be modular. Parts of program not influence other parts as little as possible. And FP brings you to the holy grail of modularity: no side effects at all. You just have your f(x) = y. Put x in, get y out. No changes to x or anything else. FP makes you stop thinking about state, and start thinking in terms of values. All of your functions simply receive values and produce new values.

这有几个优点。

首先，没有副作用意味着程序更简单，更容易推理。不用担心引入程序的新部分会干扰并使现有的正在工作的部分崩溃。

其次，这使得程序的可并行性微不足道(有效的并行化是另一回事)。

第三，有一些可能的性能优势。假设你有一个函数:

double x = 2 * x

现在你输入一个3的值，得到一个6的值。每一次。但是在祈使句中也可以这样做，对吧?是的。但问题是，在命令式中，你可以做更多的事情。我可以:

int y = 2;
int double(x){ return x * y; }

但我也可以

int y = 2;
int double(x){ return x * (y++); }

命令式编译器不知道我是否会有副作用，这使得优化更加困难(即double 2不必每次都是4)。函数函数知道我不会——因此，它可以在每次看到“double 2”时进行优化。

现在，即使每次创建新值对于复杂类型的值在计算机内存方面看起来是难以置信的浪费，但它不必如此。因为，如果你有f(x) = y，并且x和y的值“基本相同”(例如，只有少数叶子不同的树)，那么x和y可以共享部分内存——因为它们都不会突变。

如果这个不可变的东西这么好，为什么我说没有可变状态就不能做任何有用的事情。如果没有可变性，整个程序就是一个巨大的f(x) = y函数。同样的道理也适用于程序的所有部分:只是函数，而且是“纯粹”意义上的函数。我说过，这意味着每次都是f(x) = y。因此，例如readFile("myFile.txt")每次都需要返回相同的字符串值。不是很有用。

因此，每个FP都提供了一些突变状态的方法。“纯”函数语言(例如Haskell)使用一些可怕的概念(如单子)来做到这一点，而“不纯”函数语言(例如ML)则直接允许这样做。

当然，函数式语言还带来了许多其他优点，使编程更加高效，比如一类函数等。

JavaScript provides very clear examples of the different ways of approaching mutable or immutable state\values within its core because the ECMAScript specifications were not able to settle on a universal standard so one must continue to memorize or doublecheck which functions create a new object that they return or modify the original object passed to it. If your entire language is immutable then you know you are always getting a new (copied & possibly modified) result and never have to worry about accidentally modifying the variable before passing it into a function.

你知道哪个会返回一个新的对象，哪个会改变下面例子中的原始对象吗?

Array.prototype.push()
String.prototype.slice()
Array.prototype.splice()
String.prototype.trim()