Agreed; neither of the translations use monads, because monads are a semantic hand-job proscribing order within a declarative language. However, Scheme is not

Agreed; neither of the translations use monads, because monads are a semantic hand-job proscribing order within a declarative language. However, Scheme is not a declarative language, therefore order is implied in the structure, therefore monads aren't necessary. >> Your print-n-times doesn't return an action... Nope, look again. It returns the results of applying `void'. Who knows what (void) may return in a loosely-typed language? >> ...it's an imperative function that performs an action. Well, considering Scheme is an imperative language with side-effects, it's hard to dodge such criticism. >> The naive translations to Scheme would be as follows... That's not a translation from Haskell to Scheme, that's writing Haskell using a prefix syntax. >> Also, both your examples rely heavily on non-strict evaluation. 'and' and 'or' are both macros that non-strictly evaluate expressions. I went back and re-read your original post: >> ...you'll note that the translation, strictly evaluated, gives infinite recursion. Mea culpa--I completely missed your point that translating from a turing complete language to a non-turing complete language might have some pitfalls.