The schism created by the Simple Haskell folks in the community is a rather unfortunate one.

For context, Haskell used to pride itself on being a language where researchers could experiment with industry users on an industrial-grade compiler without interfering with one another. Industry users get new features sooner, researchers get feedback faster, etc. No long revisions of the standards and waiting for implementations to catch up. The evolution of language extensions, specifications, and the standard base libraries have a long history of success with this approach.

However, in the last few years, a group in the Haskell community has felt like they had to push back against the work of these researchers and "protect" the language from adopting them. You end up with folks like the author who feel exhausted by having to argue against adopting these features in code bases they're working on and you have the researchers who also feel exhausted getting constant push back on their ideas and hard work. As this schism has developed it has left people feeling exhausted on both sides where there was once collaboration and community.

Write a style guide. This isn't a problem that's unique to Haskell. You get it in C++ and even Javascript too. If using the entire language is not feasible for your project then state it clearly in a guideline. At the very least it requires contributors to seriously consider their reasons for going against the guide and forces them to justify their changes. The nice way Haskell has done it, from my perspective, is that you basically don't pay any cost for not using those features (caveat being Linear Haskell, but they made it a goal to minimize the impact and I think the cost has been amortized by performance gains in recent versions of GHC at least).

Towing the line against progress in the language seems counter-productive to me. I think there are plenty of language extensions in Haskell to work around the lack of expressiveness in the type system that wouldn't be necessary if the language had dependent types. Learning how to use those extensions and which ones work well together is a whole art that could be greatly simplified by a more expressive type system.

To be fair, I almost never use dependently typed Haskell. And I rarely reach for type level programming... until I can't; usually when I'm writing library code that needs to do stuff with user types... even then, quite rare in practice.

If you sympathize with the author then adopting Haskell may not work for you but I would still consider that there are many technical reasons to use it on a project.

Also, I would also advise folks to avoid telling people they should learn Haskell in order to become better programmers. It's true you have to learn a lot more to go from Java -> Haskell than you would from Java -> C#. However there are practical reasons to be using Haskell that aren't about self-improvement:

- GHC is a battle-tested compiler with decades of industry use that produces some excellent code, has an excellent manual, and has an active community of contributors that are always improving it and making regular releases.

- The concurrency story in Haskell is hard to beat: you want immutability-by-default and STM on green threads. It's excellent.

- The type system is a feature: inference, typed holes, type classes... if you don't have a ton of domain expertise you can still arrive at solutions to complex problems using algebraic reasoning. Clash, Crucible... there are many projects that benefit from having a good industrial-grade compiler that also has an expressive type system.

However I have been using Haskell professionally for a number of years, I maintain a couple of libraries, and I stream myself working on non-trivial Haskell projects for fun and there certainly are drawbacks that I would call out:

- On projects that get into 5000+ modules, build times become difficult to manage and require extensive tooling to stay productive. Haskell does a lot more work than many other language compilers and you have to avoid a lot of features that might be convenient in order to keep build times under control

- Modules are fine but type class constraints can "leak" outside of your API boundaries which can lead to a fair amount of coupling if you're not disciplined about how you approach the design of your type classes.. not really a thing you'll be worried about off the bat though, more of a nitpick

- If you interact with SaaS services chances are you will have to write your own client libraries. For things like amazon AWS you're covered but there are a lot more out there and people don't publish SDK's in Haskell.