Author here. I&#x27;m not trying to claim that nested scoped continuations (what the literature calls &quot;delimited continuations with multiple prompts&quot;) are objectively easy, although I do think they&#x27;re a lot easier than monad transformers, especially for imperative programmers. In fact, in the post I say that I&#x27;m not sure languages should expose this abstraction directly.<p>It is merely discussed here to show that the theory behind the imperative style is not different from the one behind the PFP style, aimed for those who believe &quot;PFP is just math, while imperative is &#x27;not math&#x27;&quot;, or to those who are curious to see (as I was) if the imperative style has something like PFP&#x27;s monad, namely an elegant abstraction that&#x27;s at the heart of everything.<p>In practice, however, most continuations should be used sparingly if at all, except one -- the thread (in particular, the lightweight thread). Lightweight threads make the most annoying problems of monads in an imperative language go away, and are easy for imperative programmers to use.