Fair enough, and I also provided a "raw patches of memory" example earlier provided that you are willing to buy linked lists as common language :) QM via appro

Fair enough, and I also provided a "raw patches of memory" example earlier provided that you are willing to buy linked lists as common language :) QM via approximation is an interesting point! I suppose in that sense my metaphor breaks down. Approximation works in some fashions, but you need notions of convergence to make that go. These cannot be had in describing monad-nature. I'd definitely say that once you "have" the concept it becomes standard and nigh universally useful vocabulary. You want to use it a lot because it makes a lot of sense to do so, but this isn't a good didactic method. I also kind of want to argue generally against the idea that computers are just dumb machines capable only of shuffling memory around. Of course to a certain degree this is true, but only in the same way that algebra is just a series of symbolic algorithms. It's true, but there's nothing interesting to be had from that POV. The fun stuff occurs when you take the perspective that what's going on inside the model represents faithfully something more interesting going on inside our own heads or out in the world. Monads are a powerful, simple and subtle thing which happen entirely abstractly—it's just up to us as humans to recognize the pattern (or, equivalently, up to automated computer algebra pattern inference machines to do the same).