I am also amazed at how ‘high level’ Haskell frequently is I experience emotions very similar to what I feel when someone shows me highly golfed Perl. If some very mild discouragements are enough to keep typical OCaml from looking like typical Haskell, I will be relieved.
That sounds like it’s just a snipe, but it really comes across that you do not think there even exists an opposing position to yours. That there are just people who haven’t connected the dots yet, or who don’t quite understand your position yet, but would understand it if you would beat the drum for a little bit longer. That you are speaking to people who want OCaml to be like Haskell but just haven’t figured out how to do that yet.
I think, when you do understand that an opposition really exists, that you will be more comfortable with a kind of “fine I’ll go build my own treehouse and you’ll all see just how much people prefer it to yours” solution: use, or create, a standard library that offers the compose operator, and encourage the use of it. There’s a whole book that relies on people using an alternative standard library so it’s not something unprecedented.