Oh I hadn't realized I was dealing with another of his sock puppets.

It is slander against them as I point out in [my comment on your comment](http://symbo1ics.com/blog/?p=788) . If you cut out all use of the text from #haskell, it would be just another uninformed farrago of lies about Haskell, like the other one you generate in your comment -- the one about the Monad type class, there are perhaps several other -- which is a criminal slander directed against Philip Wadler in particular. He introduced type classes in the late 80's thinking in particular of ML. See the papers assembled on
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/type-classes.htm... (It is by the way this rather unremarkable use of type classes that is the source of your difficulties). Note that even in the 1995 co-authored paper "Type classes in Haskell" makes no mention of a Monad typeclass; indeed type classes that operate not on individual types, but on type formers like Maybe or IO etc. are no where envisaged.

Later, following the lead of Moggi's 'monadic' semantical doctrine, he saw that a programming language could internalize this idea, and moreover that he could introduce a type class Monad into Haskell itself, a move far outstripping anything you could previously have anticipated from the type class concept. Papers on this are to be found here http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/monads.html

Haskell was well under way before this move was made. Type class Monad was a rather late introduction.

Now, you declare these actions of Wadler's to be a "use of ... pseudo-mathematics as reasoning in the decision-process for the Haskell language". You suggest that Wadler was unaware that every monad on a category is a functor from the category to itself. And you suggest that Wadler can be brought under this heading: "These individuals assimilate the concepts, and then pervert them, giving them names which are not appropriate — a kind of pseudo-mathematics."

This is all outright slander. Here your rigorous mathematical meditation on the pitiful wanna-be and fraud Wadler in full:

There are individuals, however, who thrive on the “mysteriousness” afforded by this unapproachability. They revel, rather than find distaste, in the “genius” image pinned to those who can speak in this technical tongue. These individuals assimilate the concepts, and then pervert them, giving them names which are not appropriate — a kind of pseudo-mathematics. Haskell’s Monad is a prime and very uncontrived example. It is impossible to ensure that a monad within Haskell conforms to the monadic axioms (in other words, it is impossible to ensure a monad within Haskell is actually a monad). Furthermore, though it is often regarded as a historical mistake, monads in Haskell are not instances of the Functor type class. This is particularly strange, because monads in category theory are functors by definition. By considering the use of this pseudo-mathematics as reasoning in the decision-process for the Haskell language, we arrive at the conundrum described in the post. Claiming mathematics as the reasoning for such errors contradicts the flagrant disregard for mathematical correctness with Monad or Num, for example. It is this contradiction with which I take severe offense.