> I concede that I could be wrong on the point's of ML/Haskell families, however, it relies on the practitioner correctly using the type system to the extreme (at least, that is my impression).
I wouldn't say it's "extreme", it's very normal and natural. You just stick everything in the types and it works.
> C++ and other similar OO's, the type system isn't as compelling as a correctness measure.
Agreed that C++-style types are awful. You can generally encode whatever you need if you work hard enough at it - e.g. https://spin.atomicobject.com/2014/12/09/typed-language-tdd-... - but it's painful.
> In which domain are you working in where this has been the case? It may be my experience, but types as I have seen them used in industry have been more as "data containers with some behaviors".
> I'd appreciate some examples of where you think I may be getting types wrong or missing the point.
I've worked in "regular industry" and found types to be very effective. Let me turn it around: what kind of logic errors are you seeing that you think wouldn't be eliminated by using types? Types can't help you avoid errors in the specification itself, and there are a few domains where they may not yet be practical (mainly math-heavy things like linear algebra, where there's centuries' worth of mathematics that's applicable except where it isn't, and we just don't capture all of that in practical type systems yet), but the vast majority of the time you can construct your types in ways that force your logic to be correct because you just don't offer the ability to do the wrong thing.