Oh you went for number of programmers, that isn't what I meant (obviously). Think influence. Think dropbox, uber, amazon. And think stripe trying to add type annotations to ruby. This is what I meant.
Okay, my $0.02 cents: this is mostly a periodic trend. Large companies had static codebases and switched many codebases to dynamic types circa 2000-2010.
And we've even been to the same circle before: a lot of programming the 60s and 70s was untyped, then they switched to typed C++, Delphi and then Java.
Being very generous to /u/nurettin, I think maybe they mean that the use of said module by a particularly influential group of developers has the byproduct of broader Python use by folks who might not use said module.
I see some mild sense in this argument given how TypeScript has taken off and dispersed into audiences who wouldn't ordinarily be interested in such a thing. I'm not sure it works in the Python world though, since Python's latter day upward trajectory is probably more oriented around heavy use in education, science, ML, PyTorch, et al?
There was nothing stopping them from adding the typing module and syntax to Python 2. The issue was more or less the forced painful backwards compatibility break; in hindsight, that could have been avoided while giving us still a lot of new goodies.
