> Is this a problem when Haskell is used professionally by software engineering teams?
Yes, large segments of Haskell culture love complex language features and wild abstractions. Unfortunately that mindset seeps into everyday code because key libraries depend on the complex features.
The Simple Haskell movement (https://www.simplehaskell.org/) tried to develop a pragmatic culture but it fizzled. Back when Simple Haskell was active, it was fun watching advocates of complex, abstract Haskell argue against straightforward programming that normal developers can understand.
> it was fun watching advocates of complex, abstract Haskell argue against straightforward programming that normal developers can understand
I don't think that's what they were arguing against. I think they were arguing against equating straightforward programming with basic language features.
That's true, much of the technical discourse haggled over favorite language features. But that missed the much bigger point: If we use complex, abstract Haskell for practical apps, what are the consequences of alienating the vast majority of professional developers?
Unfortunately the answer is clear: Haskell's arcane reputation has solidified.
Well, it's a good question. I'm in favour of using simple[+], abstract Haskell for practical apps, welcoming the vast majority of professional developers!
[+] "simple" in that the solution to a problem is expressed in a simple way, not that it restricts itself to a particular subset of the language.
Yes, large segments of Haskell culture love complex language features and wild abstractions. Unfortunately that mindset seeps into everyday code because key libraries depend on the complex features.
The Simple Haskell movement (https://www.simplehaskell.org/) tried to develop a pragmatic culture but it fizzled. Back when Simple Haskell was active, it was fun watching advocates of complex, abstract Haskell argue against straightforward programming that normal developers can understand.