> You seem to be asserting that I'm claiming that Haskell simply can't do the things that imperative languages can do No, that’s not my intention. I responded

> You seem to be asserting that I'm claiming that Haskell simply can't do the things that imperative languages can do No, that’s not my intention. I responded to your view that monads are hard to understand by saying that they show up in other languages too in non-trivial ways. I also don’t mean to say that Haskell is like imperative languages. Just that monads by themselves show up in imperative languages too, so they are not as esoteric as the operator names (>>=, >>) may make them seem. I appreciate that you followed up in good faith. The point of view that you expressed makes sense to me.