The arguments for and against a type system like Haskell's have been going on seemingly forever, and the commonly parroted line from e.g., Clojure or JavaScript enthusiasts (like the curly-haired San Francisco guy) is that there has never been a single study to support the idea that a type system like Haskell's is generally a cheaper way to write reasonably robust software. Point them to a study like this, and you're met with "Nuh-uh! Not valid! Nope!"
My observation is supported by section 7, "Lessons Learned".
> …The reaction from the other participants, however, in particular those not familiar with the advantages of functional programming, was somewhat surprising, and is worth some discussion.…
> …In conducting the independent design review at Intermetrics, there was a significance sense of disbelief.
> …some observers have simply discounted the results because in their minds the use of higher-order functions to capture regions was just a trick that would probably not be useful in other contexts. One observer described the solution as “cute but not extensible”
> We mention these responses because they must be anticipated in the future. If functional languages are to become more widely used, various sociological and psychological barriers must be overcome. As a community we should be aware of these barriers and realize that they will not disappear overnight.
They're right. These barriers haven't disappeared overnight. They haven't even disappeared after a quarter of a century. People still come up with stupid reasons why they don't like Haskell.