> Whatever extra bugs are caught by Haskell’s elaborate type system that wouldn’t be caught by a simple type system like Java’s, are replaced by bugs introduced by laziness.
I think you're simply wrong. I've been writing software professionally for almost 30 years: say what you will about Haskell's weaknesses, I've consistently found it to provide a better _software engineering_ experience than most other languages I've used. The only thing I think comes close is Erlang/Elixir, and even then I miss the sophistication of Haskell's type system all the time--the ability to make a change one place and have the type checker tell me so much about where else I need to make corresponding changes is invaluable.
Feeling constrained in what I can express because the type system forbids it almost always leads me to realize a logical fallacy in how I've been considering a given piece of code. And yes, Haskell records are bad in a lot of ways, but it still isn't enough to make me throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the existence and utility of row polymorphism in PureScript in my mind dismisses the notion that this has something to do with the type system.
In fact I think this article is frustrating and off base because I value Haskell so much for its ability to help me write useful, maintainable code; I don't care about esoteric extensions or type-level programming other than how much it enables me to solve problems.
I don't get why so many people have the attitude about Haskell that you do. I think a lot of people bounce off of it but this is not the same as asserting that it doesn't live up to the promise--it does, and then some, as far as I'm concerned.
Then again, I was also a jazz performance major