1. Excel doesn't use rigid types so we can throw away all the rigid math stuff (this is where our perspectives diverge into non-sense)
2. Each Cell is a Monad
3. Each monad can be composed and reflect eachother better than any other programming language (more than Pipes like my original 1 | 2 | 3 example)
That's why I wish we could throw out the Math, if we can't even use Monads without mathematically knowing they are Monads then no one is ever going to be using them. There must be a way that these patterns can become so intuitive, like Pipes (weak) and Excel (strong) that they speak for themselves and become tangible.
You don't need to know what a monad is to use one. Everyone who has ever written a computer program has used one. Knowing that you're using a monad, and what that means about your program structure, is the entire value proposition here - actually applying particular monad operations is utterly trivial. "Monad" belongs in the same category as "data structure", not "tree".
Absolutely false.