Reviewer has chosen to be Anonymous

Overall Impression: Good

Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Excellent
Originality of the paper: Yes
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes

Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Satisfactory
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Good

Detailed Comments:

I'm quite impressed by this revision. The authors significantly expanded on the context of the discussed constructions. I appreciate the extra literature on the use of monads and categories in previous probabilistic languages (8.3, 8.4), which helps ground the discussion. Other parts also are given extra context to help the reader.

In addition, the authors implemented publicly available versions of the language in both Haskell and PyTorch.
Since all my main concerns are properly adressed, I'm happy to recommend accepting the revised paper in its current form.

Reviewer has chosen to be Anonymous

Overall Impression: Good

Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Excellent
Originality of the paper: Yes
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes

Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Satisfactory
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Good

Detailed Comments:

I would like to thank the authors for their response. All my concerns have been addressed and thus I move towards a clear acceptance of the paper.