I do think Ryan is being completely unfair to the original article.
Oh, I wouldn't take it that far. I think he was just bothered that the author of the article felt a need to apologize for a productive, dynamic, less-formal language. Ryan's point, I think, is that in fact these less-formal languages aren't just theoretically superior, they are demonstrably superior; formalist languages are full of hype, but when you look at the real software that we use (in the case of the web, indirectly) it's not Java, and Java doesn't deserve to be some gold standard for technology comparisons. Even by "professional" standards (which as joeg pointed out, don't actually exist) Java doesn't deserve particular authority compared to other traditional systems like Perl or PHP. And Ruby is not strange at all compared to Perl or PHP.
None of this was really the point of my article -- I just used his post as a starting point to continue some other thoughts I'd been having.