Just noting that types have been around in programming longer than 2012 (when TypeScript first came out).
It's possible for someone to be an expert in both JavaScript and OCaml. Or any language. The JavaScript language is both approachable and in wide use, attracting not only novices, but experts from many domains.
It seems silly to assume the "JavaScript community" is no more than its lowest common denominator of novice programmers, jumping on bandwagons without any historical context. People are jumping on bandwagons, sure. But every bandwagon needs a driver, who by necessity must be an expert in multiple domains.
The people pushing these trends are not naive to their historical context. They simply see practical benefits worthy of experimentation, and they don't let emotional attachments to their knowledge cloud their judgment.
In that regard, "jumping on the types bandwagon like it's some new discovery" is exactly right, because it's indeed lots of people's first language. But I don't see why this should sound so negative. Newcomers are now introduced to types and they're amazed by them. That's welcomed and we shouldn't feel they're taking away our own shiny toy and tainting them or whatever.
I think it pays to be nice to beginners. Sure, you don't get the usual quality you're looking for in a niche expert language where communications are atomic, on-point, and lossless, but that's _OK_. All in all, things like a better type system, better language semantics and better paradigms are still worth fighting for.
