Or from the horse's mouth:
Snap: "Snap is a simple web development framework for unix systems, written in the Haskell programming language."
Source: http://snapframework.com/
The Yesod book: "The Haskell community is constantly pushing the boundaries finding the cleanest, most efficient solutions for each challenge.
The downside of such a powerful ecosystem is the complexity of choice. By using Yesod, you will already have most of the tools chosen for you, and you can be guaranteed they work together."
Source: http://www.yesodweb.com/
I am probably being entirely too harsh here. It is just that when you call something "elaborate" that is not an objective statement taken from the docs. You were probably trying to phrase things in an objective way, but I think every developer views "elaborate" as having a very bad connotation.
I also disagree with the Sinatra vs. Rails comparison for various reasons, but I don't want to spend time arguing analogies.
So not OO, and (opinion warning) a lot less "magic". Template Haskell and QuasiQuoting can be seen as "magic", but I dont think so; they are actually very transparent ways of making small DSLs (a common practice in Ruby-land) w/o the "Ruby magic" needed to create them.
So what exactly do you feel is bad about "railsishness"?
I think Rails brought a lot of sane defaults and best-practices to a web framework.. I'm not surprised to see nearly all web frameworks that came after it borrow from it. See for instance "Play" on Java/Scala -- very new, very Rails.
Your characterization of my posts as trolling is both inaccurate and unnecessary. Having a different opinion is not trolling.