This seems like an attempt to stir up a flame war. Hazel is written in ReasonML and uses OCaml-style syntax, and the Elm influence is in the design of an interactive programming environment based on running the program as you edit it. I think they could have said SLIME/ML and conveyed a similar idea. I strongly doubt the authors have anything against Haskell.

My reading is:

* Elm because Elm focused on making the language pleasant to use, and Hazel is in the same tradition of combining HCI + PL

* ML because Hazel is a strict / eager language, and people talk of ML family languages, of which Haskell is one.

So I don't think omitting Haskell is meant to be a slap in the face.

I thought the same thing. "Hazel" sounds like a play on words, a "Hazy Haskell"? Or is it because hazels and elms are trees.

I would take that to mean "strict evaluation" and "simple type system"