If you take it too seriously, it's indeed not very good. I personally take it as a compliment for Haskellers: it means that people from the Haskell (and fp in general)community do think at a higher level than the average programmer, so much that it becomes for them difficult not to.
The FP model gives good tools to enable that, and encourage people to think that way.
I may also be biased because I feel more confortable thinking that way. Certainly programmers excelling at imperative programming might disagree, but I don't think that the latest trends of "functionalizing" Java, C++ or PHP are coincidental. Javascript opened the way by bringing back that paradigm to a larger audience, and these languages, which already have FP concepts available, but not in a very usable way, are now incorporating them to the core. That's a good thing.
Regarding the original topic, Scala is very much an experiental language in my opinion (because of the concepts it involves; the implementation is pretty good), so maybe there's a little bit of thruth in the article in that regard. Perhaps that's the "flaw" of academic languages. Also the comparison with Java is quite pertinent, Java being a language designed from the ground up for engineering: the grammar is fairly simple, which provided a somewhat good compromise between high readability (because of its similarities with C) and easiness at machine processing (not as easy as lisps dialect though).
