As always, a thoughtful read by @smdiehl, even if I disagree with the conclusion.

Defining what Haskell brings to business is important, but only insofar as it galvanizes & focuses libraries, tools, books, & developers to optimize for a single market at the expense of others. https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1266768108234182661

You could change Haskell's home page tomorrow, inserting whatever catchy marketing buzzwords you wanted, but if it failed to rally the community around some identifiable and easily addressable market whose pains are best solved by Haskell, it would be in vain.

You need a critical mass of Haskell developers (including those steering the language itself) all focused around some market — any market, really — such that when a business thinks to themselves, "I have such and such a problem," then Haskell becomes the obvious solution.

Moreover, this focus must necessarily come at the expense of the generality that Haskell brings to the table. Haskell cannot be both a giant playground for experimenting with type mechanics and language extensions, and focused around a market with corporate interest.

If you look at Go, Kotlin, Python, or PHP (etc), you can see a singular focus.

Yes, you can see it in marketing, but you can also see it in the community, in the tools, in the libraries, in the frameworks, & in the companies adopting them.

You don't see that in Haskell.