A computer language can be characterized in many ways, but the most important aspects are:
(D) efficiency in speed/size, and
(E) ease of reading and maintaining
power can be thought of as, can a program be assembled from smaller pieces into a powerful complex final product?
brevity is about how many keystrokes you type to achieve a result. often a powerful language has brevity, however, extreme brevity such as APL and LISP possess entails trade-offs.
range is about how many different kinds of systems you can build with the language. Real time communications systems? Video games? Car combustion computer software? Payroll? etc.
efficiency is about how many resources it takes to run the final work product. A combustion computer needs to start up very fast, and often has serious constraints on RAM and CPU power.
ease of reading and maintaining is all about someone other than the original author being able to understand and modify some code without breaking the system.
In the commercial world ease of reading and maintaining is the dominant concern. If you use an obscure language, not many people can read it. So people tend to use the same languages they did 10 years ago, and language preferences move at glacial speed.
Haskell is not great in D (efficiency), but really suffers in (E) ease of reading and maintaining. Otherwise it is terrific, and the people who only care about properties A, B, C can sing praises of Haskell until they are hoarse. However, (E) is the fatal flaw in Haskell, and large Haskell programs are exceedingly difficult to understand. It will never be popular, and just like LISP and dozens of other powerful languages, they will remain niche forever. There is a reason why BASIC, C, Pascal, and many other very simple languages are so influential, because they are pretty easy to read. Any increase in power at the expense of ease of reading is ultimately judged by the general public as an unacceptable tradeoff. A program is written once, and used for decades, and along the way will pass through many hands.
Please note that i am not considering the benefits to the programmer who may be seeking job security; there are many instances in the history of programming languages where the bulk of programmers selected the most verbose language available so as to increase billable hours, and rejected superior alternatives. In defense of Haskell and other advanced languages, part of the resistance is a realization that a more powerful and brief language would reduce overall billable hours.