I'm really curious why Haskell has seen so little adoption in industry. Is it just the difficulty? Or a chicken-and-egg effect with tooling and libraries?
One thing I've wondered is if it actually isn't ideal for a lot of cases. FP is beautiful for certain things. But in some domains (or pieces of domains), state and mutation aren't just unfortunate implementation details, but a core element of the problem space. For these cases, the FP answer is usually "recompute and replace" (generally with immutable data structures that make this efficient). This can be syntactically clunky when it's a major part of your application, and not just a necessary evil to be swept out to the edge. The most successful languages let you be pure-functional where it makes sense and then stateful where it makes sense. Haskell doesn't, really (from my cursory reading about it).
One thing I've wondered is if it actually isn't ideal for a lot of cases. FP is beautiful for certain things. But in some domains (or pieces of domains), state and mutation aren't just unfortunate implementation details, but a core element of the problem space. For these cases, the FP answer is usually "recompute and replace" (generally with immutable data structures that make this efficient). This can be syntactically clunky when it's a major part of your application, and not just a necessary evil to be swept out to the edge. The most successful languages let you be pure-functional where it makes sense and then stateful where it makes sense. Haskell doesn't, really (from my cursory reading about it).