Wishful thinking? A lot of what he suggests have straightforward implementations as "built-in" features. (Something that looks "built-in" anyhow.)
Perl tried to be pretty much the language he suggests, but it was put together with a poor sense of language design. Ruby tried to correct Perl's mistakes, but also succumbed to the "kitchen sink" mentality. Python tried to correct many earlier mistakes, but while it was more closely integrated with the underlying OS and still managed to be a relatively simple language, it got too tied up in the underlying OS.
Most of what he's talking about could be implemented with Lisp machine or a Smalltalk VM as OS Kernel. The features he wants "built in" could simply be added to the default class library. Perhaps something based on the Erlang VM could satisfy the multi-core part.
The premise as I understand it is that modern languages are broken and have failed to evolve. An interesting point. A good start for an argument.
However, his rant devolves into:
"REAL WORLD, modern datatypes, built-in, literal, batteries-included
PLEASE!!! If the following aren't first-class types with first-class
literal constructors / representations supported at the language
level then your new programming language ISN'T EVEN ON THE PLAYING
FIELD"
No evidence. Not even a mention as to how he's reasoned that these statements are true. Nothing.
Why does my compiler/interpreter need to have an "email" data-type? Why is my language not even "on the playing field" without it? Why are there so many successful programming languages then that survive without it?
I can empathise with his frustrations. There are plenty of times on the job when I feel more like a glorified digital plumber. Deserializing/reserializing data and pushing it through various pipes isn't glorious work. But lets take the argument from there rather than flapping our arms and making frantic claims that everything the way it is is inherently broken because it's not the way we'd like it to be.
(And maybe he does just need a good dose of Lisp ;)
I think his point is that most language designers seem concerned about abstruse things and seem less concerned about his everyday problems. Someone's got to be concerned about his everyday problems to do the best possible job of designing a language to make his life easier.
Why not focus on the solution rather than hoping someone is going to listen to you complain and make it all better?
I'm sure they could use the help.