True. Traditional pseudo-code tends to be imperative.

I think you'll face a similar problem with Clojure :)

Since the example used Monads, it was rather imperative.

Monads aren't really imperative, though the syntax sugar sometimes looks like it, but in any case that's too fine a point. You know what I meant. Pseudocode usually looks like this:

  x := 1
  while (x < 100)
    stuff(x)
    x := x + 1

etc, etc. Typical Haskell doesn't look like this. The example didn't look like this. Clojure won't look like this, either (in fact, it's likely to look even weirder than the Haskell example). That's neither good nor bad; I don't think programming languages should be judged by how much they resemble C/Pascal/Python/pseudocode.