> but how one might implement them matters just as much if not more IMO This is a false choice. Learning monads through Haskell, you get the forest and the tre

> but how one might implement them matters just as much if not more IMO This is a false choice. Learning monads through Haskell, you get the forest and the trees! That said, I get that there are legitimate differences of opinion and what worked for me will not necessarily work for others. I feel like some understanding of types (or categories, etc.) is necessary to fully grok monads. Both this article and your linked paper offer some basic explanation of the concept. Tutorials that are essentially implementations of bind are, in fact, missing the forest for the trees.