[greenfield1]

Yes, it's not pythonic.

But the Maybe monad does have its beauty, which the in-built Optional doesn't really provide. If this package makes people more accepting, then let them.

[skykooler]

This feels like trying to write Haskell code in Python. If that’s how you want to code, why not just write it in Haskell?

[greenfield1]

Just because somebody mentioned the term "monad" doesn't mean that suddenly the code should be written in Haskell.

Python allows recursion too. Are you using recursion? Why not just write it in Haskell?

Python allows function calls too. Are you using function calls? Why not just write it in a functional language like Haskell?

A monad is just a general programming concept, like recursion and function calls. One particular language pioneering the concept's heavy use doesn't mean other languages can't adapt it. To the contrary, languages get influences from one another all the time. Especially Python.

Do you like list comprehensions? This super-pythonic thing? Goes back to functional languages in the 70s and the name was coined by Philip Wadler, one of the main Haskell gurus. If you like list comprehensions, this feels like trying to write Haskell code in Python. Why not just write it in Haskell?

[sdfghswe]

Designing for beauty is a mistake that people keep pointing out and people keep making.

Good software isn't art.

[greenfield1]

If I have the choice between a clean and simple to read codebase and a convoluted mess, I can tell you which one I choose. If the term "beauty" for that rubs you the wrong way then maybe we are just having a terminology disconnect.