This is very true, but I think there’s a good reason for it - using Haskell forces you to first address many fundamental issues that most languages just let you paper over. The issues still exist in other languages, but you can ignore them, and then years later wonder why so much software is ad-hoc and full of complicated, but preventable, bugs.

E.g. haskell’s laziness forced early haskellers to think about denotational ways of managing effects, and ended up forcing them to invent modern monadic effect systems. Now, there are a lot of people who actually prefer explicit effect management over freely mixing effects and logic, and not just because they have stockholm syndrome.

LOL, I've been programming Haskell full-time professionally for 10 years and think that Haskell is very effective for practical tasks. But in this case I completely agree with you. That quote fits this thread perfectly.