I would argue that Python itself is a case of this. It peaked early as an ultra-dynamic language, and was very consistent at it - e.g. all declarations are executable code, which is actually fairly straightforward conceptually and easy to explain - but this approach doesn't mesh well with things like class declarations and imports, which turns out you need for more serious development.
More recently, this is the case with typed Python. Again, the dynamic-ness of Python - which easily exceeds that of JS - was part of the original design for type annotations. Turns out it doesn't work well with things like forward references or type parameters, so ugly hacks (like stringifying type names) were introduced to deal with that. Now there's yet another revamp to fix the resulting ugliness and inconsistencies (take a look at https://peps.python.org/pep-0649/ to see what I mean).
More recently, this is the case with typed Python. Again, the dynamic-ness of Python - which easily exceeds that of JS - was part of the original design for type annotations. Turns out it doesn't work well with things like forward references or type parameters, so ugly hacks (like stringifying type names) were introduced to deal with that. Now there's yet another revamp to fix the resulting ugliness and inconsistencies (take a look at https://peps.python.org/pep-0649/ to see what I mean).