I think Haskell has the same problem as Lisp. Since you can abstract lots and lots of things away, there are tons of codebase specific abstractions that developers must keep on their heads before they can start coding.
That said, the Haskell situation is better than Lisp's, because it has a big set of "default" abstractions that become part of the language, reducing the number of codebase specific ones.
I think Haskell has the same problem as Lisp. Since you can abstract lots and lots of things away, there are tons of codebase specific abstractions that developers must keep on their heads before they can start coding.
That said, the Haskell situation is better than Lisp's, because it has a big set of "default" abstractions that become part of the language, reducing the number of codebase specific ones.