Firstly, the ruby code was produced (admittedly from my memory) from someone on the tail end of a 5 hour interview process, of which I was not the first technical interviewer. It is
exceptional in that context.
Secondly, I feel like you (and aristus in his/her code snippet above) missed the secondary point of my post. Please consider that monoids and Maybe are capturing a higher level pattern in a way that we can compose. To write a classical for loop and toss in conditionals and whatnot is to descend to exactly the same depths as the Ruby code you say is not "simple".
Basically, you say one is "simple" and the other is not is you picking up on what you're comfortable with in Python. Both are complex in the same way; the Python just makes a marginally better choice in how to represent the rules (as data).
If you'd like to see how I'd take that piece of code and golf it to include that feature, I'm happy to oblige. I originally was going to post that, but cut it because the post was already overlong and the point is to explore the unusual patterns fp is capturing.
Here is my bullshit golfing derivative, though:
{-# LANGUAGE MonadComprehensions #-}
module Main where
import Control.Applicative
import Data.Monoid
import Data.Maybe
import System.Environment
factors = [(3, "fizz"), (5, "buzz"), (7, "bazz")]
rules = [\i -> [res | i `rem` fac == 0] | (fac,res) pure i)
main = do
upTo