> We can generalise this idea of being forced to handle the failure cases by saying that Haskell makes us write total functions rather than partial functions.

Haskell doesn't prevent endless recursion. (try e.g. `main = main`)

As the typed FP ecosystem is moving towards dependent typing (Agda, Idris, Lean), this becomes an issue, because you don't want the type checker to run indefinitely.

The many ad-hoc extensions to Haskell (TypeFamilies, DataKinds) are tying it down. Even the foundations might be a bit too ad-hoc: I've seen the type class resolution algorithm compared to a bad implementation of Prolog.

That's why, if you like the Haskell philosophy, why would you restrict yourself to Haskell? It's not bleeding edge any more.

Haskell had the possibility of being a standardized language, but look at how few packages MicroHS compiles (Lennart admitted to this at ICFP '24[0]). So the standardization has failed. The ecosystem is built upon C. The Wasm backend can't use the Wasm GC because of how idiosyncratic GHC's RTS is.[1]

So what does unique value proposition does GHC have left? Possibly the GHC runtime system, but it's not as sexy to pitch in a blog post like this.

[0]: Lennart Augustsson, MicroHS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMurx1a6Zck&t=36m

[1]: Cheng Shao, the Wasm backend for GHC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMurx1a6Zck&t=13290s