Not really, you should actually read that section a few times as well.

> A fact of life in HPC is that the community has many large, long-lived codes written in languages like Fortran, C, and C++ that remain important. Such codes keep those languages at the forefront of peoples’ minds and sometimes lead to the belief that we can’t adopt new languages.

> In large part because of the previous point, our programming notations tend to take a bottom-up approach. “What does this new hardware do, and how can we expose it to the programmer from C/C++?” The result is the mash-up of notations that we have today, like C++, MPI, OpenMP, and CUDA. While they allow us to program our systems, and are sufficient for doing so, they also leave a lot to be desired as compared to providing higher-level approaches that abstract away the specifics of the target hardware.

Nothing there suggests the languages don't improve, especially anyone that follows ISO knows where many of improvements to Fortran, C and C++ are coming from.

For example, C++26 is probably going to get BLAS into the standard library, senders/receivers is being sponsored by CUDA money.

Another thing you missed from the author background, is that Chapel is sponsored by HPE and Intel, and one of the main targets are HPE Cray EX/XC systems, they know pretty well what is happening.