“Why be Like Elm?”, is that a typo? Perhaps meant to be: “Why Do We Like Elm?”
I read “Why be Like Elm?” roughly as “Why would you, NoRedInk, want to write your Haskell like you write your Elm?”
It was intended as “Why would I, a programming language, aspire to be like Elm?”.
A bit farfetched perhaps :).
I don’t think so, because many of their libraries aim to bring Elm flavours into Haskell.
How do you handle the tendency of Haskell code to be generic and monad-oriented, in contrast to Elm?