I actually had this objection in mind when I wrote that, so thank you for giving me the opportunity to expand on what I meant a little bit. Yes, it is very muc

I actually had this objection in mind when I wrote that, so thank you for giving me the opportunity to expand on what I meant a little bit. Yes, it is very much true that rust cannot yet represent monads as type classes directly, since it does not have any form of higher kinded types yet — which is the reason why I said second only to Haskell. If it could represent monads directly, than I would have placed it equal to Haskell — as I would have placed scala! But I do think it is important to highlight that it does have pervasive useful monad use in the language, and an interface that allows you to use a very large common set of powerful transformations on them via the iterator trait, and it uses the monads that exist in the language and the ability to use that trait on any monad a lot to increase the power of the language in a way no other language besides ones with superior monad support does that I know of. So I would argue that while it is still second to Haskell, it is still far above almost any other language not equal to Haskell in this respect. Which is what I meant by saying second only to haskell! Also, HKTs are something that the rust team seems to be very actively looking to rectify with an in progress implementation currently available in nightly, so that won't be true for very long.