> That's not what the original blog post was about though, it was about how bad Gunicorn is.

Yes, the post starts out describing an issue with how Gunicorn listens for connections. Like you said, there are better libraries than Gunicorn so that's not a reason to jump to Ruby.

However, the article goes on to talk about other things, like the lack of real multithreading, import-time code execution, and overall efficiency, all of which also apply to Ruby.

I'm not saying Python or Ruby are a bad choice. It's just that MapleWalnut was soliciting an alternative that doesn't have the problems described in the original post, so Ruby doesn't qualify.