> That's true for Java. Haskell, OTOH, constructs the entire language around verification through types and pure functions, and everything else is secondary. I don't know if the connection to C-H was made later or was a conscious design decision, but the result is the same from the user's perspective.

The type system of Haskell is far more interesting and powerful than that of Java, but I think you're overstating the difference. While Haskell's type system does allow you to do a few more things than just demonstrate restraints on your code (such as construct more expressive types and make use of type classes and polymorphism), at the end of the day the overwhelming utility of the type system is being able to more easily make guarantees about your code, just as it is in Java.

Curry-Howard only really becomes interesting once you have dependent types, and only becomes bullet-proof when your language is total. Haskell has neither property. The connection to C-H is something which might interest a large subset of Haskell programmers (who would likely take that interest into a study of Coq, Agda or Idris), but it has pretty much no bearing on the day-to-day usage of Haskell.