The concept that I got from the main article was that they tailored their application for "long-lived connection" to avoid multiple resource calls to make their web server more responsive. They also mention things like using "aggressive cacheing", "storing templates locally", "using timestamps to stream only required resources", "rearchitecture and rewrite."

Never once did I ever feel this article was advising that node.js was superior to RoR - they only every justified, at a high level, a way better approach (in terms of server load) to an "MVC" like architecture by leveraging client side frameworks and technique to lessen server load.

The author of this article also makes it clear at the end by stating that comparing the solutions is apples to oranges, but so did the original article...so I don't get the need for "clarification".

EDIT: I retract my "way better" statement - I mean "way better" in the sense of server load.