I find myself wondering if this is getting upvoted by Haskell contrarians who aren't actually reading the article and noticing that it not about Haskell "being too mathematical", but not being out-of-the-box suitable as a really convenient ring theory explorer. I bet a lot of the upvoters would actually consider this a good sign rather than a bad one, on average....

There's still some room for Haskell syntax improvements. I've found the recent OverloadedStrings to be a big step forward, allowing you to directly use strings in places where it actually wants another type, removing a ton of useless and hard-to-factor-out code converting strings to ByteStrings, Text, and various other types that are there simply to label Strings as something more specific.

As dfrankes says, it is known the Prelude isn't perfect, but I'm not sure there's actually a perfect formulation regardless of what you do. Even if you could get all the mathematicians to agree completely about what all relevant mathematical entities are, something that is a lot harder than it sounds because it turns out a lot of them can have arbitrarily-chosen fiddly details when you really get down to it (how many set theories are there again?), you'll never bridge the gulf between a conventional programmer and any mathematician, and I think Haskell's promise as an interesting language lies rather more with the conventional programmer case than making mathematicians happy. (Not because the latter is bad, but because it is a sufficiently hard problem that trying to reconcile the needs of such a beast with something still useful is probably impossible.)