https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/Interpr...
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/Storage...
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/vacuum
https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/paper...
https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/Paper...
Haskell is a complex hybrid. TypeClasses can't always be resolved to concrete statically sized types, Haskell does RTS Magic for you when this happens. Rust throws a compiler error in this case.
If you want to point out that "compiled" really ought to be a continuum rather than a binary property, and that by this definition Rust is "more" compiled than Haskell, I'll be right there with you (though the pre-existing word "static" probably fits better), but we'd be creating an idiosyncratic definition not shared by very many people. (Though perhaps it should be. The binary distinction of the ~1970s really isn't that useful anymore, in a world of scripting languages, JITs, and a greater focus on the costs of indirection.)
Yes it is
> It compiles to a bytecode that is ran by the RTS
Nope, it's compiled to machine code.
(We're talking about GHC here, of course)