I'm shocked by your comment.

Lisp was a language that precisely gained great adoption due to the power it allowed to the individual programmer. The lack of syntax was it's biggest advantage.

Viable ecosystems coalesced around Lisp! Emacs? Lisp Machines? Tons of scientific software? Big AI projects? The whole open source revolution started due to the appeal of the commercial world for Lisp and it's success.

Lisp was a academic and commercial success. The reasons for its decline are multiple, and yet it even was able to come back as Clojure.

And then you have Haskell. A programming language created exclusively by and for the academia. I don't know if you realise that Paul Graham launched his startup using Common Lisp... at a time when Haskell was available as open source too. I'm just using Paul's name as an example of the large community of people who thought (and think) that Lisp languages gave them a productivity and power that couldn't be compared. You even have some commercial video games programmed in Lisp languages! (the famous and repeated example of Naughty Dog). Lisp in finances? Yeap, there are still system using it after many years. Remote probes in deep space? Check. So there must be something to Lisp that helped people to create reusable and maintainable code. And in all these cases it was individual geniouses who pushed for the use of Lisp.

I think that the problem with Haskell is the single promise of its type system. Every single language that boasts to have the silver bullet that will allow people to tame programming (what is nothing more than hard complicated work) has failed to gain adoption by some reason. Diminished returns, maybe. The world is complicated and single techniques that promise to solve everything tend to fall short to the promised benefits. So, how is Haskell going to help me with network protocols? To build better generic software? To interface with the IoT? To create better AI or explore data with Machine Learning? If the answer to these and other questions is "through a hard fully capable type system", then I cannot but laugh.

Then you have languages like R, that are gaining wild adoption in the academia (even if it's a "specific" language) because people feel powerful with them. They can achieve so much more with the same effort that it's a no brainer to use it. Code reuse? Yeah!!!! Thousands of libraries available that work like a charm. Ugly? As hell! but who cares? Oh yes, dogmatic showing-off aestetically/academic inclined posh programmers that represent a small part of the industry, they seem to care a lot (I include myself in this group). And yet smart people is using R every day to the point of forcing people like me (yes I programmed in Haskell in the past) to recognise that there must be something to it. A programming language that transfer a unseen amount of power to the normal user (even if it's an opensource copy of previous software).

As I said, I would like to be able to use the «I reject your reality and substitute my own» card... but after that many years I think that doing so would be just plain naîve.

PD: I would never put maintainability above power (power being defined as "now I can do X easily in half the time"), it seems to never work when it's achieved through "training" and "complexity" (as in for instance "large learning curve").