This is a terrible and also hilarious argument. Instead of saying Haskell has too many newfangled ideas, you're instead arguing that it has an insufficient amount of them.
So Haskell has newfangled innovations compared to the big players, and it _also_ has a mature ecosystem in widespread use.
This puts it ahead of Purescript and Idris for adoption in large scale projects (although I would readily agree that both those languages are pretty great too).
I maintain that lazy evaluation works great, it just requires optimizing along different paths than devs are used to -- but it doesn't incur more "overhead" to optimize code than is the case in typical strict languages, which _also_ have to pay that cost, just in different sorts of optimization and reasoning.
So Haskell has newfangled innovations compared to the big players, and it _also_ has a mature ecosystem in widespread use.
This puts it ahead of Purescript and Idris for adoption in large scale projects (although I would readily agree that both those languages are pretty great too).
I maintain that lazy evaluation works great, it just requires optimizing along different paths than devs are used to -- but it doesn't incur more "overhead" to optimize code than is the case in typical strict languages, which _also_ have to pay that cost, just in different sorts of optimization and reasoning.