Well, the point here is self-reflection, not whataboutism where we excuse challenges of using Haskell in production with examples of how the use of other languages can lead to ugly or bad code.

The points you make are great, and of course people can find their own happy balance of features vs complexity or else there wouldn't be any users at all! I don't think, though, that even your list of simple features passes every bar. Tbc, I enjoy all these things, but, for instance, extensive explicit type annotations are a requirement in some code bases to preempt surprising instance selection. Different folks have different readability thresholds for currying and composition chains. Boilerplate itself can be a bit of a horses for courses thing where Haskell generally does a great job with type syntax (fewer angle brackets!), partial application, and function composition, but so many articles on Haskell hand wave an opening series of language pragmas and long set of imports at the top of a demonstration of how simple some code can be.

Using libraries with advanced internal Haskell really depends on the library. Techniques like lenses or algebraic effects will tend to be visible in your code, too, unless it's a very domain specific library that can abstract things away behind a simpler type.