Yea... that's a trade off, unfortunately, and I won't pick sides here. Stronger static typing has so much potential for tooling, but none of that is reality, sadly.
As for Haskell, I think, it's a combination of manpower (so popularity, really) and the fact that the compiler wasn't developed with tooling in mind.
Thanks for conversation, stranger, and have a nice day!
And same to you, kind stranger!
> most changes/refactorings I usually encounter are due to trivial problems that can be automated
This is interesting because another popular argument against Haskell is "Haskell's type checker can only check trivial properties that can be automated".
Either automating trivial things is valuable or it's not, and the anti-Haskell camp seems not to agree on which!
However, most changes/refactorings I usually encounter are due to trivial problems that can be automated. And I'd love to have those tools for FP where a lot of changes are still just that: rename a function or a field in a data structure, extract a function, rename/move a module, update type signatures etc.
However, it looks like the stronger the static typing, the worse are the tools :) Not enough manpower to take care of them, perhaps?