Uhm...am I misunderstanding something? It sounds to me like the author is saying we should be spending time tuning UWSGI's plethora of configuration options rather than using gunicorn. I much prefer components which "just work" for a healthy range of typical use cases.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's cool he made it work.. but seriously?
There was absolutely no tuning other than adjusting buffer sizes (which only matters because it accepts large POST packets).
The options that a standard application will use are almost identical between the two. UWSGI just provides numerous lower-level options that I (and it sounds like you) probably don't care about.
If you want performance, tune. If you don't, leave the defaults. How can more options be bad when the default is as good or better than standard Apache + WSGI?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's cool he made it work.. but seriously?