Not critisizing RoR, it is the grandmother of all of the web frameworks we enjoy in practically every mainstream language. Also it is dynamically typed. I do prefer static types on the code I write because I am less likely to make mistakes and I like to have a more explicit 'contract' in place between code boundaries. However I am open minded to why people prefer dynamic types and I imagine it is all to do with speed of initial development akin to "Move fast and break things" and "MVP".

That said Microsoft's ASP.NET MVC would be a good contender for your call to suggest a better language.framework.

It is indeed very productive. It has a massive package ecosystem, great documentation, a very long lifespan (not as old as Rails, but probably about 10 years old now). ASP.NET MVC is all over the enterprise so it is well proven, plus StackOverflow if you want a high traffic example - there are probably many more. Where I think it beats Ruby in particular is the C# language is really excellent.

C# is my favourite language for getting things done and I've tried Ruby, Java, Python, Haskell, Basic and Javascript and gone into some depth with all of those. The reason is the excellent language features, one of the first to have async/await, good generics system, Linq is awesome, there is even some dynamic types support if you need it - which is nice for web page stuff while you are experimenting and then can 'shore it up' with a class later on.

The downside of C# I think but I need someone else to confirm is it is probably a bit confusing for a newbie, because of the vast number of features and many ways of doing things because of it's history. Not so bad if you have been doing it for years.

Another downside with ASP.NET is different ways of doing things in .NET Core so lots of relearning to do and tutorial roulette where if the tutorial is using .NET Core you may not find it easy to integrate into your classic application. Although I think RoR would suffer such upgrade issues I am sure.