Why is it FUD? It's my own feeling. In this specific case I had just spent a week of my and my work's time and money learning Racket at an official Racket schoo

Why is it FUD? It's my own feeling. In this specific case I had just spent a week of my and my work's time and money learning Racket at an official Racket school only to find out at the end that they're creating a new "surface" syntax. The split of do I learn and participate with Rhombus or Racket is a concern. The idea that the core maintainers, or really the core maintainer (singular), is busy with Rhombus is a concern. The explanations given at the time for the Rhombus project were primarily dubious and unclear. The uncertainty and doubt were not created by me. It was enough to make me move on. Other languages like F# and Elixir suit my needs. > The academic part of Racket gave rise to `syntax-parse`, a truly fabulous improvement over the standard Lisp/Scheme/whatever you used to work with way to write macros. That's not the academic part I am referring to. My comment is about who the maintainers and users are and how their profession or studies affect how Racket is interacted with. (This is not a complaint or judgement. It's an observation.) > The language has been "complete" for a long time. There are a fair number of bugs in Racket's libraries, including core ones. They aren't discovered because academic users are not touching bits that more industrial-oriented users would find. In particular, I am thinking of the GUI toolkit, and in my experience, only one person is capable of fixing those.