The blog is arguing that Ruby is an acceptable alternative to Lisp, which may be true. But that doesn't make Ruby a Lisp.
In my experience, being that I'm learning Haskell and coming from a Ruby background, merely having lambdas doesn't qualify for functional status.
Now I suppose someone is going to ask me what arguments are bad. Two examples: 1. "The most common use of LISP macros is to avoid typing lambda quite so much" - obviously false; 2. Using Lisp to model a Ruby example of "mini-language" demonstrates Lisp's power, not Ruby's.
One could probably argue that Perl6 is a Lisp with CFGs a first order language primitive (which is in essence what macros allow), c.f. Greenspun's Tenth.
I for one may use Ruby as a scripting language for my next project, I want to see more articles like this.
I usually don't! This is an article about Ruby and "LISP". I read articles about Lisp. This one is mistaken, I think, mostly because the author hasn't used Lisp to do much, but writes about it anyway.
But I really don't mean to carp about the article. Ruby makes him happy, that's great.
edit: Ups, read the "Lisp is not an acceptable Lisp". Makes the same point...
PLT Scheme? Clojure?
Even CL has some of the best libraries I've used, although coverage can be spotty at times.
This still hasn't killed all the other programming languages, which leads me to believe that libraries aren't actually what matters. I think, instead, that most people pick programming languages based on what's crammed down their throats. For a UNIX app, you "have to" use C. For everything else, you "have to" use Java, since that's what you learned at school (now it's .NET too).
Popularity is overrated anyway. Haskell and SBCL are not exactly popular, but they have great runtimes, important modern features, and plenty of libraries and tools. The only reason not to use them is because you'd rather use Java instead.
So far as the idea "Ruby is an acceptable Lisp"? This is as wrong as the idea "Time is Money".