Don Stewart wrote:

I think we don't see as much metaprogramming because of other language
features -- laziness, operator syntax, and type classes -- make a bunch
of common designs work without needing metaprogramming.
 

While true, there are also 2 other reasons for meta-programmers are not all over Haskell:
1. efficiency nuts are already using C++ templates and don't see why they would switch,
2. people who care about types use a typed meta-language (like metaocaml) instead of an untyped template layer atop a (fantastic!) typed language.