We all know that naming is one of the hard problems in computer science. Monads in programming have been around for 20+ years now, and you are certainly not the

We all know that naming is one of the hard problems in computer science. Monads in programming have been around for 20+ years now, and you are certainly not the first one to complain about their name. So where are the better alternatives? Surely someone must have come up with a better one by now? Instead we get nice "English" names which only work for certain monad instances and fail to adequately describe others. Elm uses "andThen" instead of "bind", which works pretty well for the monadic types in its core library. But you need to start stretching your imagination to see why "andThen" makes sense for other monadic types. Honestly, I'm fine with "andThen", especially in the context of Elm and the monads it implicitly uses. But in the wider world of programming where exotic but useful monad instances exist I'd rather stick to the most general name. By the way, the more pressing reason for Elm not having monads is the fact that it doesn't have typeclasses (or a similar concept) and doesn't allow you to parametrize over higher-kinded types (like Maybe).