I appreciate your explanation but again it fails to actually show it being useful outside of the context of working around Haskell's strict type system. What the OP and myself would like to see is concrete examples why this is a better approach than the way something would be done without explicitly caring about monads (I say explicitly because I know there is a tendency to say that some given structure is a monad and we didn't realise it; but that still doesn't really prove that it is all that useful in the general sense)
One problem I suppose is that not everyone speaks the abstract language of monads and so it does not serve much usefulness, yet, and maybe there is a little chicken and the egg with that.
One problem I suppose is that not everyone speaks the abstract language of monads and so it does not serve much usefulness, yet, and maybe there is a little chicken and the egg with that.