Personally I think of Haskell the same way I think of C++ in terms of language features. There are so many and so much to choose from that there should be one person in every company that has simply decided that the company uses this particular subset and that's it, pending very detailed and well-motived discussions in the future, but at a snail's pace.
In my particular case I would also prefer for that subset to be chosen with a conservative and considerably less PLT-enthusiastic mindset, i.e. bog standard `RIO` style that prefers imperative code working on bags of mutable values of different types when solving problems.
But yeah, Haskell is a wide language and that's why it's so hard to adopt. People tend to learn ostensibly the wrong things, oftentimes from people who've never actually written any real production code but like to theorize and hypothesize about "the best pattern for X" and so on.
In my particular case I would also prefer for that subset to be chosen with a conservative and considerably less PLT-enthusiastic mindset, i.e. bog standard `RIO` style that prefers imperative code working on bags of mutable values of different types when solving problems.
But yeah, Haskell is a wide language and that's why it's so hard to adopt. People tend to learn ostensibly the wrong things, oftentimes from people who've never actually written any real production code but like to theorize and hypothesize about "the best pattern for X" and so on.