The original wired piece is effectively a lot of words that swirl around one poorly argued point: ruby is falling behind because of it's lack of static typing support. "Seriousness" is an ironically unserious way to evaluate, well, anything, but if you were trying to force a definition based on the rest of the poorly formed narrative, it must be "static typing". Performance doesn't work as serious critique, because...python, and it probably shouldn't anyway (within some semi-reasonable range).

Except for static typing and ruby's particular style of metaprogramming (one could argue python enables decorator-based "meta" programming, but whatever), ruby and python are basically the same language, with some obvious semantic differences. Of course there is much about ruby and python that is very different -- adoption, library support, community, vibe, whatever. And you could say that python is at it's core functional with OOP layered on top, while ruby is the opposite, it's all sort of irrelevant, they are basically the same, in the fundamental daily experience of using the two languages, in that ruby/python and go (or java, or elixir, whatever) are very much NOT the same. Minus static typing support.

I'm optimistic ruby will figure this out soon, because the sort of static typing support that has propelled javascript and python is the kind that ruby can and should support. By that I mean neither really have static types. Typescript is another language that compiles to javascript, and python's typing support remains and probably always will be optional, and like javascript, is enabled by external tools (mypy, pyright, etc). Neither python nor javascript have a type-centric/aware runtime, or even one in which types are considered at all. They are still both very much dynamic languages that basically have nice developer tooling to help developers write "type-safe" code, but really, in production, we're just pretending that the types we work with in development exist at all in the runtime.

This is not so much a critique of the approach, but the mass pretending we do when we critique a language like ruby for "not having types" and praising javascript or python for "having types" which they clearly do not. But the approach is good, at least if you agree that optional typing is better than java/go style static typing.

I don't know what's holding ruby back from better supporting optional typing, but i hope they fix it soon. My sense is, to over-simplify, sorbet got too popular, but it's fundamentally an approach you would take if you had to build a type system around the language rather than in the language.