I'm preferring dynamic languages and lots of tracing and rollback capabilities in production in 2021.
Modern statically-typed languages are a totally different beast. Type inference is widespread and powerful, and you end up writing very little additional boilerplate. On top of that, guarantees like the prevention of null values greatly increase the value you get from having static types.
If you haven't tried one in a few years, I recommend revisiting them. TypeScript is a great place to start.
PS: It's totally possible, but also totally unnecessary, to write TypeScript like you would Java or C# (lots of classes, nullable-everything, explicit types for everything). To get the most out of it you honestly have to do the exact opposite of that (turn on strict null checks, use plain types, leverage type inference as much as possible).
I don't think people have that view because they haven't experienced modern static typing systems. I think they have that view because they aren't willing to admit that they make the kinds of mistakes that static types help with, and they aren't willing to admit that they benefit from the kinds of assistance that static types provide (autocomplete, go to definition, etc.).
It's annoying.
Of course, there is no general rule. This is true for the type of projects that I've been recently working on, which are small-scale distributed web systems.
If a new project demands a rigorous type system, I would probably go to something like PureScript[0] before going to C# clones like TypeScript. It seems that the compiler would help me a lot more in a language like that.
No you don't. See how autocomplete does with this function:
def foo(s):
s.
def foo(s: str):
s.