At this point it's mostly about (cost) efficiency, like how many EC2 instances you will need to cover your workload with a service implemented in a particular framework. It also assumes that developers can pick any of them with the same amount of effort, which is probably a proper assumption for a benchmark that measures performance.
How much cost efficiency is there? I’ve worked at multiple of the top 100 websites in the U.S., and none of them had more than a dozen web servers. For any website, 90% of traffic is logged out and probably doesn’t even hit the web servers.
And web servers are generally the least expensive component of hosting costs.
These costs are more meaningfull for those who bootstrap their businesses and projects at their own expense. I have a personal anectdote where switching from a scripting web framework to a compiled one reduced the runtime size, and the deployable environment went from 800mb to 10mb, which allowed me to fit all my deployments into a free-tier monthly quota of AWS ECR.
Given I already knew both frameworks from fulltime jobs, it's a great net benefit.
It also means that whoever wants to use self-hosted open-source alternatives of user-tracking services (notes, calendars, emails, etc), they can do it cheaper or even for free.
