Ruby is slower than Java to run but faster to write, or read. Which is more important to you? I don't know any company in the world who'd pass if given the opportunity to (say) cut their dev time in half at the cost of doubling their hardware.
Ruby is not statically typed, but neither are Python, Perl, Lisp, shell scripts, etc. Is this really a problem for you? I'm sure you could find just as many people in dynamic languages who would complain that Java, C#, C++, etc., are statically typed. We've no lack of examples of systems built on dynamic languages.
I'll agree that Ruby isn't suitable for large projects, but neither is any other language we have today. The state of software engineering is pretty clear to me: nobody can reliably build large systems well. At least Ruby makes your large projects smaller in lines-of-code, which makes them (somewhat) more manageable. It's syntactically richer so you can say (something closer to) what you mean. It's faster to write so you'll find out quicker if you're going down the right path or not.
If these are the best arguments against Ruby, then Ruby is doing better than I'd thought.