>> Then maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of your reply. I was pointing out that your examples don't make sense, as it's trivial to translate the Haskell co

>> Then maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of your reply. I was pointing out that your examples don't make sense, as it's trivial to translate the Haskell code into another general purpose language (such as Scheme, C, Perl, Fortran, etc), while impossible to translate into an eager (strictly evaluated) language (such as...?). Additionally, the reason monads are cumbersome in other languages has nothing to do with eager/lazy evaluation, or conditional computation, and everything to do with the fact that monads exist in Haskell to solve it's sequencing problem (arising from the fact that it's a declarative language). Imperative languages have no problem with sequencing, and therefore have no need for monads.