I'm not sure about haskell, but in clojure the, run code, reason, run more code cycle is very much supported with the repl.
In fact I find the nature of functional code very much helps out here. With clojure, in a complicated system I can typically take any subcomponent and run it in the repl without much fuss/mocking or worrying about the state of the system. Since usually functions aren't modifying state I can rerun, modify, rerun over and over again without restarts.
Like Clojure (which I have used a lot), Haskell development uses a repl (with really nice emacs support). For bottom up coding, I place a main function in every file with my test and experiments code; with an active repl in emacs it just takes a few seconds for the edit/run loop. In lower level code, I leave these main functions in place even though I am unlikely to need them once the code is working.
So, yes, Haskell and Clojure development has a similar flow.
Oh, absolutely. But I wasn't counting Clojure as FP in my comment. There is no definition for FP, and the OP seemed to be talking about the statically typed, pure FP, of Haskell and scalaz. Clojure is certainly not that kind of FP, as it's neither statically typed nor pure.
It's not the only functional language by any means, but it is the strictest (he he.) It's silly arguing which is worth more, but it's also silly saying "Clojure is just as good as Haskell at separating effects."
In fact I find the nature of functional code very much helps out here. With clojure, in a complicated system I can typically take any subcomponent and run it in the repl without much fuss/mocking or worrying about the state of the system. Since usually functions aren't modifying state I can rerun, modify, rerun over and over again without restarts.