A paradigm is sneaking in when you aren’t paying attention. Pay attention. There’s a chance here to influence development practice for decades ​ We really can have languages that give the benefits of tomorrow without losing all the working components of today. I think Swift can be one of those languages. ​ Much of that, I believe, is education.

While no level of type safety is sufficient to ensure all programs' correctness, the fact that the Semantic Code team spends the majority of its time working on features rather than debugging production crashes is truly remarkable—and this can largely be attributed to our choice of language. ​ but in Haskell: its brevity, power, and focus on correctness lets researchers focus on the nature of the problem rather than the onerous task of fitting advanced research into conventional languages. Writing in Haskell allows us to build on top of the work of others rather than getting stuck in a cycle of reading, porting, and bug-fixing. ​ a reputation for being difficult to learn. Some of that is well deserved, but half of it has more to do with how many of us first learned imperative programming and the switch to a functional paradigm takes some patience.

When working with a monad, you work in its Kleisli category which is another example of a CCC. The above discussion relating function evaluation to function composition, would then relate Kleisli evaluation (=) to Kleisli composition (=). Woah, is `bind` just monadic function evaluation?