1982: Knuth's paper "The concept of a meta-font" is published.
1991: Adobe's "Multiple Master" fonts are introduced.
1994: Apple's TrueType GX is introduced. (Later "Apple Advanced Typography".)
2016: OpenType "variable fonts".
Maybe "variable fonts" are better than their predecessors? It's hard to tell. But it's strange for the predecessors not to be acknowledged at all.
Much more information about OpenType's "variable fonts" can be found at https://medium.com/variable-fonts/https-medium-com-tiro-intr... -- discussed on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12501665 . (That article does mention TrueType GX and Adobe multiple masters, but not Metafont.)
Edit: never mind, I looked up the original paper and find a good description in just the first paragraph. He definitely had variations of the letters in mind.
And even then, the typefaces made with metafont are often very poor designs compared to those draw in a GUI in a 'dumbfont' format.
Adobe Multiple Master, then TrueType GX, and now OpenType Variations, are a 'best of both worlds' compromise; the drawing quality of visually crafted outlines, and the continuous-space-type-family-in-1-file typographic flexibility of metafont.
That can be done with OpenType Variable Fonts (eg Decovar and Amstelvar) but is not commonly done with them (eg OTvar fonts with just Weight and Width axes)
Its more common that parametric fonts are made with 'generative font' formats, like metafont and www.Prototypo.io, where there is a turing complete programming language that controls and generates the letter shapes.