I'd suggest evaluating tools on an as-needed basis, instead of wholesale rejection. And I'd 100% agree that the article could've benefited from a "Why Haskell, specifically" section. But really, few things are unequivocally useless. (Or good, for that matter)
(I'd also suggest that you meant 'recoiled', not 'rebuked')
The article has nothing to do with Haskell, other than it's what I use. Why should I have to justify that when I want to talk about architecture diagrams?
Would the same expectation be in place of my examples were in JavaScript? I doubt it.
It's your article, you don't have to justify anything.
That said, it still would've been nice to hear if Haskell has bought you anything that other languages don't do.
Would I have asked the same question for a JS article? Maybe I wouldn't have asked - I'm a bit more familiar with JS than I'm with Haskell - but a "and here's why I picked those tools" section would still have been interesting. I like hearing how people think about solving problems.
The fate of writing in public: people will always ask for more info on the parts that they're interested in.
(I'd also suggest that you meant 'recoiled', not 'rebuked')