What I meant to say is that the abstractions are definitely there in zio, which was meant to address your first comment where you said that zio did not have the

What I meant to say is that the abstractions are definitely there in zio, which was meant to address your first comment where you said that zio did not have them. By reading the docs I could easily recognize monads. If you replace “for” with “do”, they even have the same syntax! I could also see clear examples of things that were modeled as monoids and functors. I would claim that zio took inspiration from Haskell to model the composable parts. Hey, I’m not complaining about any code, and specially not flatMap. I think it is a great design. It is the bind operator in the monad class in Haskell, and there is also syntax sugar to hide it and make it look like imperative code, just like Haskell. I like that! It seems to me that it is fair to say that the abstractions are useful as you recognize in your previous comment. Maybe you just have an aversion against the abstraction names, or the way many Haskell-related articles go on and explain them… which is fair enough. I learned Haskell without having to understand those concepts. I could just used them by experimenting with what was possible and seeing examples from other people. It was not particularly difficult. So, as you also figured out with zio, understanding the abstractions is not a requirement for using them.