It&#x27;s an interesting article and something I would like to think deeply about, but I hope the author will forgive me if it isn&#x27;t immediately obvious to me.  Especially the statement that &quot;monads have no place in imperative languages&quot;.<p>For example, I do a lot of Java&#x2F;Coffee script lately.  I don&#x27;t have access to first class continuations.  Don&#x27;t get me wrong; I&#x27;d love to have them.  I&#x27;m sick as the next person of blowing up in a callback and having my stack completely hosed.<p>But in Coffee script, monads are nearly trivial to implement.  The use of the Maybe monad makes doing repeated transformations and filtering incredibly nicer.  It is not obvious to me that a continuation based implementation would be clearer at all.<p>Perhaps the author is trying to make the case that first class continuations are more important than first class monads for imperative languages.  If that&#x27;s the case, then I tend to agree because, like I said, monads are not difficult to implement even if you don&#x27;t have explicit support for them.  Stack preserving continuations on the other hand... :-P<p>I think the idea of using composable continuations is a very interesting one and I&#x27;d like investigate it further, but unless I&#x27;m being very dim-witted (a definite possibility) I don&#x27;t think the matter is as clear as the author hopes.