When comparing Haste vs OCaml, the Slant community recommends OCaml for most people. In the question“What are the best Functional languages to learn for web-frontend development?” OCaml is ranked 8th while Haste is ranked 11th. The most important reason people chose OCaml is:
Functional programming is based on the lambda calculus. OCaml is in its functional parts almost pure lambda calculus, in a very practical manner: useful for many daily programming tasks. The acitve development makes improvements to the type system like generalized algebraic data types (GADT) or polymorphic variants, so when learning this language you get at once a down to earth usable compiler and advanced abstraction features.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Client and Server as the same application
Haste was designed to allow both the client and server to be written as parts of the same, type-safe application. This is in stark contrast to most other options, where the client and server are considered two separate entities, resulting in extra manual validation code and more chances for type errors.

Pro Almost full power of Haskell
Haste supports the Haskell 2010 standard except for Template Haskell as well as most GHC extensions.

Pro Automatic, type safe program slicing
Haste lets you write client and server as a single program, automatically generating code for the server as well as the client, giving you full type safety even across the Internet.
Pro Generates small, reasonably performant code
Pro Actively-developed functional programming language at the forefront of research
Functional programming is based on the lambda calculus. OCaml is in its functional parts almost pure lambda calculus, in a very practical manner: useful for many daily programming tasks. The acitve development makes improvements to the type system like generalized algebraic data types (GADT) or polymorphic variants, so when learning this language you get at once a down to earth usable compiler and advanced abstraction features.
Pro Encourages functional style
It steers you towards a functional style, but doesn't bother you with purity and "monads everywhere" like other languages, such as Haskell.
Pro No windows!
Strong focus on *nix systems, lacking native support for MS Windows
Lacks native support for Windows systems.
Pro Sophisticated and easy-to-use package manager
OPAM is a package manager for OCaml, which is really easy to use, just like npm. It creates a .opam folder in home directory.
The documentation is great as well, and you can switch between multiple versions of OCaml for each project. You can also package your project and publish it on OPAM repositories, even if the dependencies do not exists on OPAM.
Pro One of the best for writing compilers
OCaml is compiled to native binary, so it's amazingly fast. Being a member of ML-family languages, it has expressive syntax for trees, and has great LLVM support.
Pro Stable syntax
The syntax is consistent, some syntaxic sugar but at a reasonable level, so reading code of others isn't too much confusing.
Pro Strong editor integration
The merlin
editor tool provides all you need to develop OCaml in your favourite editor.
Cons
Con Lacks some minor Haskell functionality
Lacks support for Template Haskell.
Con Strong focus on *nix systems, lacking native support for MS Windows
Lacks native support for Windows systems.
