"(namely circumventing a type-anal non-strict compiler)"
Monads don't circumvent anything.
"in imperative languages straightforward code works just fine"
Or seems to, but is actually deeply broken. Which is regularly the case in the code bases I deal with day-to-day.
"the use case for this kind of function chaining doesn't appear all that often"
Or it does, and you miss it. All of computation can be expressed as function chaining. Writing C or Python, I've often wanted to be able to constrain things at that level.
That's my point. Aside from my lack of amusement by Haskell's type system, I'm not making any moral or qualitative judgements one way or another. I'm talking about programmers in general. The parent's question was why monads are difficult to convey. My argument is that, in the first place, the pattern monads are DRYing is not obvious to people, and might not even be recognized as a pattern in the first place.
Hmm. I suppose there is some semantic ambiguity in "appear". If you just mean that any arising opportunities are not noticed, then I certainly agree with that part of your comment.
Monads don't circumvent anything.
"in imperative languages straightforward code works just fine"
Or seems to, but is actually deeply broken. Which is regularly the case in the code bases I deal with day-to-day.
"the use case for this kind of function chaining doesn't appear all that often"
Or it does, and you miss it. All of computation can be expressed as function chaining. Writing C or Python, I've often wanted to be able to constrain things at that level.