Ruby and Python overtook Java and C++ in the early 2010s in _spite_ of their lack of a good typing system, not because of it. On the whole, they are much more productive languages.
Now we're seeing languages that have Ruby / Python productivity but also have much better ways of static typing such as Typescript and Swift. And the Ruby / Python community is more open to static types as well.
The problems of ~2010 Java and C++ were mistakenly pinned on static types and the framing of "static vs dynamic languages" was always a red herring. Java and C++ were just crappy languages (at least in 2010, not sure about modern incarnations).
It really is a shame that Swift is so confined to the iOS world because it's such a great example of how you can have a language that feels like a scripting language but with much more advanced type safety.
There are great examples far older than Swift, for example ML that dates back to the 1970s, or OCaml that's as old as Java.
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is writing something that works and works well. Hackers go through too many moodswings to be worth paying attention to when they start telling you how you should code.
True! But computer scientists (who are sometimes also hackers, sometimes not) apply research methods to existing codebases and the practice of coding, and have repeatedly presented findings that indicate that, mood swings/fads/hype cycles aside, some techniques really do deliver better software quicker. The VPRI STEPS work is an interesting example of this.
That's not to say that every CS methodology paper should be taken as gospel; we have problems just like other disciplines, sometimes more. But it's a far cry from post-hoc rationalization and hacker mood swings.