In Haskell, typeclasses are language-level construct, not needing any implicits, and monadic code is easy to write using do-notation which is syntax sugar over binding ("comprehensions").
In Scala, typeclasses are a pattern, something achievable using a bunch of language features strung together, and implicits are likely an inevitable part of that mix. For-comprehensions is what "sequential computation" really is if you want to represent it as a function, and not forget to check intermediate results. It has numerous advantages, but again, on the language level it's a pattern, a contraption that makes monadic style possible, but not necessarily easy on the eyes.
In Scala, typeclasses are a pattern, something achievable using a bunch of language features strung together, and implicits are likely an inevitable part of that mix. For-comprehensions is what "sequential computation" really is if you want to represent it as a function, and not forget to check intermediate results. It has numerous advantages, but again, on the language level it's a pattern, a contraption that makes monadic style possible, but not necessarily easy on the eyes.