>>3
Nomads are just one example of
all that's wrong with
Haskell. This is the main reason these shit languages will never take off: if you can't explain it simply, it means with very high probability that it
SUCKS DONKEY BALLS.
That said, I'd appreciate an
ENTERPRISE-GRADE description of Monads. All I know is that they make the language useful by allowing to do non-functional stuff, such as
BASIC I/O.