I think there are cases where the functional style is more legible, but also cases where imperative style is more legible. I really think the imperative style i

I think there are cases where the functional style is more legible, but also cases where imperative style is more legible. I really think the imperative style is more legible in this particular case. This is why Haskell and OCaml allow imperative constructs when they're more legible. I'll take an example from Learn You a Haskell[1]. In Haskell, one can implement a quick and dirty stack like this: type Stack = [Int] -- Throws exception on empty list/Stack pop :: Stack -> (Int, Stack) pop (x:xs) = (x, xs) push :: Int -> Stack -> ((), Stack) push a xs = ((), a:xs) You can then write a function to push 3 onto the stack, then pop two items off the stack, returning the second popped item—this is equivalent to just popping an item from the stack and returning it, but the point is to show off the stack manipulation. stackManip :: Stack -> (Int, Stack) stackManip stack = let ((), newStack1) = push 3 stack (_, newStack2) = pop newStack1 in pop newStack2 But using the state monad, it is more legibly written like this: import Control.Monad.State stackManip :: State Stack Int stackManip = do push 3 _ <- pop pop [1]: http://learnyouahaskell.com/for-a-few-monads-more http://learnyouahaskell.com/for-a-few-monads-more