> A lot of them are niche use or only really exist to cover lack of features in languages (...)

This take is a reflection of a failure to understand the concept of design patterns, their usefulness, and their role in software engineering.

Design patterns are not features missing from a toolkit or language. This is perhaps the biggest miscomprehension regarding design patterns. It's immaterial if a language supports or not a given programming construct in it's core language or standard library. The whole point of design patterns is that they represent higher-level programming constructs that pop up often in implementations and are frequently used to address common problems.

Think about it for a second: do futures or promises or callbacks or sharex pointers cease to be design patterns or lose any usefulness if these features are supported by the core language? Is the observer pattern not a design pattern anymore in C# or Java once it was implemented into them as first/second class citizens?

Or do we understand what these techniques involve just by mentioning these keywords?

Clearly the main problem plaguing design patterns are those who feel entitled to criticize things they don't know and clearly failed to grasp even the basics.