> I think you're reading a bit more into this than I intended and I guess that's fair. That's what I'm reacting to, mostly. But also to the idea that it's some

> I think you're reading a bit more into this than I intended and I guess that's fair. That's what I'm reacting to, mostly. But also to the idea that it's some kind of universal, uncontroversial positive for a language to abstract over an unbounded number of implementations of monads. In a tautological sense, of course, if a language doesn't support feature X that's a problem for people who want to use feature X. But we don't write programs to use language features- we write programs to solve problems. That is, one could argue that feature X has too much complexity to be worth having in a language, and that solving the same problems another way (or not at all) is better. This is different from the point I made up-thread, and I'm still not trying to make it about monads. But it does seem to me that classifying every tradeoff as a shortcoming presupposes that if a language could support every single possible feature it would be perfect, which is also a silly proposition.