[monads]

A lot of thanks for your feedback.

I actually criticise the illusion (that the book and the series bring) that the category theory is "the ultimate source" of motivation in FP languages.

On one hand, it's direct (and very natural) to reproduce some categorical structures in a FP language (e.g. Haskell, ML) since such a language is around functions and values. I doubt that such categorical structures should be considered patterns.

On other hand, Haskell or ML does not come from the category theory, it comes from PCF as a language which is created to make program correctness proving is "easy".

I dont want to mean someone using this book to prove mathematical theorems, I just want to say that it's superficial (about both category theory and computer science), and does not bring sufficient knowledge upon that we can build nontrivial results.