Quite the opposite; the community is very practicality-oriented. There's just a different style of naming things, because things in Haskell tend to be more general. But in most languages any frameworks will introduce their own terminology; comments about the details of (say) React observables are just as incomprehensible if you're not familiar with React.
Well, the facebook team decided to use a specific variation (monodirectional with no side effect) of MVC and rename it flux to confuse everybody. So I react is probably not a good software to measure yourself against when it comes to clarity.
It was a random choice of big-name framework; I could say the same of Rails or Spring or anything.
Naming things is hard, and the same pattern is constantly rediscovered in different places. If anything I'd say Haskell's difficulties come from the other end: being too willing to respect the "original" name of a concept from an old mathematical paper rather than coming up with a branding that programmers will be more comfortable with.
One issue I have with ad hoc naming convention is that while they may make the first month of learning nice and easy they usually don't have the nice synthesizing effect where all of your notations come together beautifully.
Math is terse and there is an initial hurdle to get over. However, once that initial hurdle is cleared there are a lot of things that become obvious as a direct consequence of the notational bootstrapping that we did.
With that said, every time I start looking at Haskell I end up playing with category theory instead which may be indicative of something.
The parent seems to agree with you, that Haskell is maybe too eager to keep to 'mathematical' names, but it almost sounds like you interpreted the parent the other way around?
Your comment reads almost equally well with two different interpretations. One a restatement of fact, and the other a rather rude response to a misunderstood message.
