saying that all languages have issues is definitely painting things with a broad brush. Why would I want to use an unmantanable slow language when I can use a fast maintainable language.
I find Ruby to be a very maintainable language. I use Ruby with Ruby on Rails which is a great framework to create web applications and the like. I would not use Ruby if I were in the system programming space as it is too slow and not strict enough. Every purpose can have a different language that is great for it, but don't forget that every programmer also has a language that is good for him. I, for example, will never work with PHP again because I find it ugly and I don't get happy working with it. Rust looks great though, when I find a purpose for it I might give it a go.
Ruby's slowness is often mentioned, but Ruby is quick enough for many situations. I am very productive in Ruby and servers are cheaper than developers so for many purposes it works out just fine. I have tried Phoenix (Elixir) and I found it too verbose and complex to work with. I am sure though that others love it, so to each his own.
Saying that all languages have some sort of idiomatic issues therefore there's no point complaining about language X is a fallacy that attempts to completely sidestep the issue at hand. You have to admit that although they may be Turing complete, all such languages are not pragmatically equivalent and some have significant pain points, possibly more impactful than others, otherwise we'd all code in INTERCAL and be all the merrier
I once wrote (by hand, over 3 or 4 pages) a program to add (I think, been >20 years) two integers using a Turing machine. I can definitely attest that not all languages are equivalent.
This statement is a platitude.
A: "Kim Jong-un is bad".
B: "If you haven't discovered issues with your government then you haven't lived there long enough".
