Syntactically Haskell and OCaml are extremely close. A lot of the surface difference between the two languages has nothing to do with syntax and has so much more to do with how things are named by default in the standard libraries. (There are massive differences in the type system and all sorts of subtle differences below the surface, of course.)
Comments
There is no reason for Haskell to be a "mess of symbolic soup".
You can make Haskell about as human-readable as Ruby if you choose to.
Syntactically Haskell and OCaml are extremely close. A lot of the surface difference between the two languages has nothing to do with syntax and has so much more to do with how things are named by default in the standard libraries. (There are massive differences in the type system and all sorts of subtle differences below the surface, of course.)