I think a lot of it could be personality based. With C, Lisp and Forth you bash out code and run it, see if it works and then make changes. You get much faster visual feedback.
With Haskell, you need to put in a lot more up front thought. Then stuff doesn't compile and you spend ages working out why.. You can go for hours without having anything running. The cause of the errors can be quite abstract and obtuse and may seem like it is nothing to do with the actual problem you are trying to solve.
Ghc haskell has a bunch of features to make type errors into runtime errors and a really good repl. You can do interactive development pretty well this way.
The way I write php isn't that different from how I write haskell, especially with phan running on save. Php actually requires a bit more thinking in advance because I can't refactor it quite as easily.
What could also be taken into account is that I used to be up there preaching the static typing gospel. And then I gradually got fed up with the ceremonies, since they didn't pull their own weight and couldn't keep up.
It's all compromises. The claim is that in return for following rigid rules, they guarantee this and that. Sort of the same deal the state has pushed down our throats since forever. And for a while it seems reasonable, until you pull hard enough to notice the chains around your ankles.
With Haskell, you need to put in a lot more up front thought. Then stuff doesn't compile and you spend ages working out why.. You can go for hours without having anything running. The cause of the errors can be quite abstract and obtuse and may seem like it is nothing to do with the actual problem you are trying to solve.
Different people just suit different styles.