Yes I agree (haskeller myself). The "disappearance" I meant was addressing the original point of view that the repetition of the pattern was a weakness in the language, something like Visitor pattern disppearing in Common LIsp. (an intriguing idea to play with and a valid point of view). Your interpretation of disappearance goes the other way - something like continuations being hidden in fortran and explcit in Scheme.
"Accusing Haskell of being "less advanced" because it actually exposes Monads to you and permits you to use them is very much like accusing C++ of lacking power vs. C because it permits you to overload the square brackets. If you put aside the question of whether it's a good thing to have the power (a separate debate in both cases), it's not a very sensible accusation to level against Haskell."
A better analogy would be an argument about exposing call/cc in scheme. Is call/cc good language design? There are arguments on both sides. Haskell does continuations differently than Scheme. Which is "better"?
And come on, no one is really "accusing" Haskell of anything. I for one, like the language a lot.
If you will, think of this as a speculation about a successor language. 15 years from now (say) there will be a better language than Haskell in the statically typed lazy functional languages space, which absorbs the key positives of Haskell, has a few new ideas, and possibly treats Monads differently (or does away with them altogether). Clean (the language) deals with IO with uniqueness types with nary a monad in sight. Is that design "better"? Worth thinking about.