I'm not disagreeing, but this is a very good jumping off point for what is an enormous discussion in the philosophy of programming right now. You've identified the correspondence between the programming language support and relevant monadic constructions. There's also the principle that programming is about applying relevant abstractions. The point of contention revolves around the question of "Should monads be available to programmers in the abstract where programmers are supported enough to write their own monads? Or should monads be reified into language constructs, thus making it a up to the language designer to choose the finite set of available monads and syntactify them into language constructs?

A vocal camp wants monads in the abstract and feels like reified monads as language constructs completely misses the point. The other camp is happy to accept new syntax and keywords to get their work done and see monads as ivory tower language enthusiasm. The choices that language designers make increasingly put their languages on one side or another of this dividing line.