Not to diss on Haskell, but to illustrate the difference: There's an entire HaskellX 2022 talk about "language extensions we use, extensions we are cautious about, extensions we never use". There are many ways to solve problems in Haskell; and mostly only one or two ways to do things in Elm. The most choice I can think of is in context of parent-child communication (Config pattern, OutMsg, flat Msg type). Most everything else has a single obvious solution.

Yes, sometimes the simplicity of the language leaves you wanting a bit more power (typeclasses, macros) but the code quality seems (to me) better with the constrained language than with the unconstrained one.