This example: x = foo01(); y = foo02(x); z = foo03(x, y); could easily be written in Haskell as: let x = foo01 y = foo02 x z

This example: x = foo01(); y = foo02(x); z = foo03(x, y); could easily be written in Haskell as: let x = foo01 y = foo02 x z = foo03 x y in z My thinking is that functional languages don't preclude you from having intermediate state, but I will agree that composition is used often. Typically when working in a repl I don't really miss the intermediate state because my debugging consists of: The lambdas must flow. λ> foo01 "expected result" λ> foo02 "UNexpected result" Then I'll debug foo02 in isolation. > foo03(foo01(), foo02(foo01()) ); I think I'd write this as the let example above with variables. Otherwise I guess I'd need to use something like: foo03 foo01 . foo02 $ foo01 Here's a Haskell playground link with these examples if you're curious or had something else in mind and want to modify the example: https://play.haskell.org/saved/MeRGyCjr https://play.haskell.org/saved/MeRGyCjr