Of course you're correct in the literal sense. But reading things like "The History of Haskell: Being Lazy with Class" Hudak, Hughes, Peyton-Jones, Wadler gave me a different perception.
The first time the term monad is mentioned, it is in the description of the agenda of the paper: "monads and input/output (Section 7)".
The second time is "May 1996. ... Monadic I/O made its first appearance, including “do” syntax (Section 7), and the I/O semantics in the Appendix was
dropped."
A few more occurrences of the term and we get to section 3.2 "Haskell is pure" which says "Necessity being the mother
of invention, this embarrassment ultimately led to the invention of
monadic I/O, which we now regard as one of Haskell’s main contributions to the world, as we discuss in more detail in Section 7."
"Section 3.8 Haskell and Miranda ... More fundamentally, Haskell did not adopt Miranda’s abstract data types, using the module system instead (Section 5.3); added monadic I/O (Section 7.2); and incorporated many
innovations to the core Hindley-Milner type system, especially type
classes (Section 6)."
"Section 6.4 Higher-kinded polymorphism
The first major, unanticipated development in the type-class story
came when Mark Jones, then at Yale, suggested parameterising a
class over a type constructor instead of over a type, an idea he
called constructor classes (Jones, 1993). The most immediate and
persuasive application of this idea was to monads ... Jones’s paper appeared in 1993, the same year that monads became
popular for I/O (Section 7). The fact that type classes so directly
supported monads made monads far more accessible and popular; and dually, the usefulness of monadic I/O ensured the adoption
of higher-kinded polymorphism"
The entire Section 7 is called "Monads and input/output"
Section 7.3 "Monadic I/O
Although Wadler’s development of Moggi’s ideas was not directed
towards the question of input/output, he and others at Glasgow soon
realised that monads provided an ideal framework for I/O"
As a Haskell novice I think I could be forgiven for having the perception that the evolution of monads in Haskell was driven by the unwieldyness of managing mutable state (such as I/O) in a pure lazy language.
Yea, I'm not blaming anybody. Just pointing out that it was recognized that monads were useful beyond I/O in the early days. It's definitely true that I/O was a major impetus for them.
The first time the term monad is mentioned, it is in the description of the agenda of the paper: "monads and input/output (Section 7)".
The second time is "May 1996. ... Monadic I/O made its first appearance, including “do” syntax (Section 7), and the I/O semantics in the Appendix was dropped."
A few more occurrences of the term and we get to section 3.2 "Haskell is pure" which says "Necessity being the mother of invention, this embarrassment ultimately led to the invention of monadic I/O, which we now regard as one of Haskell’s main contributions to the world, as we discuss in more detail in Section 7."
"Section 3.8 Haskell and Miranda ... More fundamentally, Haskell did not adopt Miranda’s abstract data types, using the module system instead (Section 5.3); added monadic I/O (Section 7.2); and incorporated many innovations to the core Hindley-Milner type system, especially type classes (Section 6)."
"Section 6.4 Higher-kinded polymorphism The first major, unanticipated development in the type-class story came when Mark Jones, then at Yale, suggested parameterising a class over a type constructor instead of over a type, an idea he called constructor classes (Jones, 1993). The most immediate and persuasive application of this idea was to monads ... Jones’s paper appeared in 1993, the same year that monads became popular for I/O (Section 7). The fact that type classes so directly supported monads made monads far more accessible and popular; and dually, the usefulness of monadic I/O ensured the adoption of higher-kinded polymorphism"
The entire Section 7 is called "Monads and input/output"
Section 7.3 "Monadic I/O Although Wadler’s development of Moggi’s ideas was not directed towards the question of input/output, he and others at Glasgow soon realised that monads provided an ideal framework for I/O"
As a Haskell novice I think I could be forgiven for having the perception that the evolution of monads in Haskell was driven by the unwieldyness of managing mutable state (such as I/O) in a pure lazy language.
https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/paper...