I feel like a link to a 'pitch' or description of the Rhombus language would've been more insightful for most of us. Even being familiar with Racket, I don't know what Rhombus is.
Here's the link I found more informative:
I was kinda hoping to see this was the next generation of Lisp language design, but it appears to be just a different syntax.
Dig deeper in the reference documentation.
Abstract: Rhombus is a new language that is built on Racket. It offers the same kind of language extensibility as Racket itself, but using conventional (infix) notation. Although Rhombus is far from the first language to support Lisp-style macros without Lisp-style parentheses, Rhombus offers a novel synthesis of macro technology that is practical and expressive. A key element is the use of multiple binding spaces for context-specific sublanguages. For example, expressions and pattern-matching forms can use the same operators with different meanings and without creating conflicts. Context-sensitive bindings, in turn, facilitate a language design that reduces the notational distance between the core language and macro facilities. For example, repetitions can be defined and used in binding and expression contexts generally, which enables a smoother transition from programming to metaprogramming. Finally, since handling static information (such as types) is also a necessary part of growing macros beyond Lisp, Rhombus includes support in its expansion protocol for communicating static information among bindings and expressions. The Rhombus implementation demonstrates that all of these pieces can work together in a coherent and user-friendly language.
I don't think Rhombus is going to appeal to people that are comfortable with Python, C, Java, Go, JavaScript, etc... It's got infix, but it's cryptic. It seems like a step back from StandardML or Ocaml.
Maybe there's a justification in terms of how the macros work. Maybe they're poisoning the well to make Lisp syntax more appealing. I'll try to reserve judgment, but so far I'd rather program in Scheme/Racket than this.
A few weeks ago I went through the "GUI demo" source, and it's not bad. Of course just reading it doesn't tell much about what's the IDE support, how easy it is to figure out the arguments/types. (But it's rhombus/static, which is encouraging!)
Having traditional infix operators, function calls, array subscript, and field access is a great start, but after that it doesn't look very traditional or familiar at all.
I hope they succeed, and I'll keep following their progress, but when I look at their if-statements, it's pretty non-traditional:
if is_rotten(apple)
| get_another()
| take_bite()
be_happy()
I think that the macro system can handle the traditional "if X ... else ..." structure, but there is a design decision to avoid magic keywords like "else" as much as possible, like "in" in "fox X in Y: ..." Why should each construction have a different magic keyword? Can it be solved with only one thing that is shared in all construction like "|"? If you see the examples, all the other constructions with branches like "cond" that replaces "if" with "elseif" or "elif" ir whatever use "|". "match" also uses "|". This is better if you want to write macros that extend the language and have a similar structure.
(For what it's worth, I insisted in that "if" uses two "|" (one for each branch, instead of one only for the "else" part.)
aut consequens, aut alternatus? ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aut#Conjunction )