> I am a nobody in front of people like Matthew Flatt, but this feels like Seconds Systems Effect taken to its extreme definition:

I think you are mistaking working time for bloat; they can be inversely related; it's easier to add lots of ideas, it's harder to pare things down.

> Plus as a former Perl programmer having watched Perl 5 lost almost everything, chasing a never to have come to reality Perl 6. I can say, given all this, the future of Racket as a language, for its core uses and users is pretty much dead in the years to come. Like dead totally.

This isn't Perl 6.

> Many people prefer a perfectly working tool improved over time, than a pie-in-the-sky idea that will never come to see the light of the day.

Pretty much everyone does, but Racket remains the former. Neither the schedule nor the ambition of new Racket development has been scaled back for Rhombus. It's not even clear that they would once Rhombus was generally available and hosting Racket, though there would also be a place for improvements that didn't fit in Racket.