monads

So the issue is that Monads save us having multiple returns?

One of the tricks is the use of monads in Haskell.

Often real world library Monads are stacked multiple levels and debugging has been particularly difficult.

Or rather, I think your perspective is better handled by a language which supports monads than one without.

As for Monads - it is just an Abstract Data Type, nothing special, in which Semantics and Type information complement each other.

I get the sense that there are people who think Monads are a fundamentally powerful pattern for structuring software.

Or, put another way, what use are Monads in non Haskell code?

That's one of the things monads do, but they can do more.

Since the Monads chapter in the book was pretty light, I thought I will check out this paper that was referenced.

The parent's question was why monads are difficult to convey.

Sometimes people realize great things by picking new monads.

Rather, monads are a conceptual structure into which I/O happens to fi t.

The moral of the story is that of course ML “has monads”, just like Haskell.

Was there a clear, common equivalent, "monads in language foo" would be less popular.

Monads are really just a small set of functions that operate in a certain way (that "satisfies the monadic laws") on a type.

Ambient monads can be a little annoying though since when they exist you cannot "get outside of them" which will reduce your flexibility.

My point was that I don't get the emphasis on Monads, as a concept, for the range of things it gets emphasised for.

Here's what I don't get with Monads, why I've not felt the need to create a Monad-like system in my (non Haskell) code.

I wish there are more materials that walk you through more complex implementation (like 3-level stacked Monads) step by step on how certain things work.