I'm interested in why you think recent changes are making Haskell a less
viable alternative to mainstream languages.
I don't want to put words in Johan's mouth, but we visited together last week and discussed this very topic, and I think my feelings on the matter are pretty similar.
For the sake of argument, let's assume I'm a potential commercial user who needs to decide whether Haskell is a technology I can base my next product on. I'm going to do a cost-benefit analysis before I make my decision. The major "pro" arguments you hear for using Haskell is that you'll end up with programs that are more likely to be correct, and that since the language is more expressive, you'll work faster: in other words, your net productivity will increase. Of course, these hypothetical productivity benefits are extremely difficult to quantify (and Lord knows, we've tried), but that's not at all true for the "con" arguments:
how many Haskell programmers are there in industry? If I lose my local expert who is trying to push us to use this thing, can I hire another?
how many lines of code are written in Haskell globally vs other languages?
how much tooling will I have available to help me if I choose Haskell vs. a "safer" technology like Java, Python, or Go?
how many open source libraries will I have available to me to handle common tasks, and what is their quality?
how likely am I to encounter bugs in the compiler or base libraries?
The point Johan is trying to make is this: if I'm thinking of using Haskell, then I'm taking on a lot of project risk to get a (hypothetical, difficult to quantify) X% productivity benefit. If choosing it actually costs me a (real, obvious, easy to quantify) Y% tax because I have to invest K hours every other quarter fixing all my programs to cope with random/spurious changes in the ecosystem and base libraries, then unless we can clearly convince people that X >> Y, the rationale for choosing to use it is degraded or even nullified altogether.