> Most problems I solve today are not good fits for static types.

This would seem to involve a widespread misconception about what static types are really about. Languages that "don't have static types" are not inherently more flexible than languages that do expose them; one can always translate a "dynamic" program structure to a statically-typed language in a way that preserves arbitrary flexibility in refactoring, prototyping and the like. Many languages even provide a standard `Dynamic` type for this very purpose.

Yeah, which makes them so generic they become meaningless, like generic_map, generic_attribute...no thanks.

If you want to define, transform and reason about your domain model at runtime, dynamic languages are the way to go.

I know, I've been using static typing for most of my career. They become a burden, refactoring or not. Now go back to your Haskell corner ;)

Javascript is probably not a great example, as it's my goto when I think "this would be better if the language was better".

Nonetheless, there are loads of successful projects written in Javascript, which was GPs point (not the quality of the language).