[Lio]

Meh, there's no evidence given that Ruby is not a "serious" language, whatever that means.

His major arguments seem to be that he doesn't like ruby's name.

My theory is if the author was in anyway correct in his assertions he wouldn't bother to write hit peices like this. He'd just move on.

The fact that people get stuff done in Ruby and that Ruby is constantly improving acts as a strong counter argument.

[eric_h]

I think, ultimately, what is not serious here is the author of TFA. Ruby (and Rails) still work, the ecosystem is still healthy, and their dubious citations of ruby's shortcomings (twitter's fail whale? comparing it to perl?) are just that, dubious.