The answer to your question is "no," because there are a significant number of people who feel that they are more productive in Ruby than in any other language. My organization has a large repository of Ruby scripts for doing manual tasks, created by somebody who felt exactly that way.
It's unfortunate for my company, because it would have been better if this functionality had been incorporated in our Scala services codebase, but it gives me the perspective of having used Ruby and Scala in the same system, on the same problems. My personal opinion, predating this experience but strengthened by it, is that dynamically typed languages have lost most if not all of their appeal in the face of improvements to statically typed languages.
In the 2000s, I often used the escape hatch of Boost Python and Jython to make myself more productive when working with C++ and Java codebases. I could get things done so much faster in Python that it was worth the awkwardness of dealing with language interop. These days, I don't bother. I can write quick, small, readable scripts in the same statically typed language that I use for large-scale programming.
It's unfortunate for my company, because it would have been better if this functionality had been incorporated in our Scala services codebase, but it gives me the perspective of having used Ruby and Scala in the same system, on the same problems. My personal opinion, predating this experience but strengthened by it, is that dynamically typed languages have lost most if not all of their appeal in the face of improvements to statically typed languages.
In the 2000s, I often used the escape hatch of Boost Python and Jython to make myself more productive when working with C++ and Java codebases. I could get things done so much faster in Python that it was worth the awkwardness of dealing with language interop. These days, I don't bother. I can write quick, small, readable scripts in the same statically typed language that I use for large-scale programming.