I actually remembering seeing it at some point, this guy is a pretty great presenter, glad I watched it, Thanks again for the link. Now I remember I need to go and check out small talk to see what it's he's going on about.
> He points out that the function names and type names that stem from category theory are not very good at communicating their intent in programming
This was my point exactly, also thanks for the link I'll have to checkout that talk :-)
When it comes to Monad et al I'm reminded of this talk by Gilad Bracha. He points out that the function names and type names that stem from category theory are not very good at communicating their intent in programming. (my words) Monad could be named Flatmappable f.i. 'unit' and 'bind' can have more intuïtive names as well.
At the moment I get the impression that as Scala is becoming a safe and productive and widely used tool there are developers moving to more Haskell like pastures within Scala. Perhaps because that kind of programming is required for some specific problems. But quite likely as well because they hope that it will make them stand out as smarter programmers.
Some people may remember the so called "Peters principle". Informally it states that people get promoted until they've reached their level of incompetence.
Similarly some smart developers tend to increase the complexity of their code to keep themselves amused until they're struggling to understand it themselves. Joosts principle. :-)
Edit: the link to the talk https://www.infoq.com/presentations/functional-pros-cons