The complaints weren't about the complexity of web dev, but the degree of tight coupling and bad application architecture that the author sees baked fundamentally into Rails and the approach it is designed to favor.
And as for leaving for what, the author identified both the other Ruby-based stacks and the noon-Ruby languages and frameworks that he sees as valuable. And, no, Java is not on the list.
Your rant looks like a reflexive defense of Rails from someone who hasn't read the source article more than superficially; the article doesn't dismiss the web as a serious domain, it just sees Rails as locked into a dated approach to the domain.
And as for leaving for what, the author identified both the other Ruby-based stacks and the noon-Ruby languages and frameworks that he sees as valuable. And, no, Java is not on the list.
Your rant looks like a reflexive defense of Rails from someone who hasn't read the source article more than superficially; the article doesn't dismiss the web as a serious domain, it just sees Rails as locked into a dated approach to the domain.