Because programmer hourly pay is way higher than server hourly cost. Abundant nodejs developers can pump shitty code faster, therefore delivering features faster. That’s all shareholders care about.
See, in not so sure about that. Go has a lot of issues, things it doesn't do well, but one thing it is good at is being simple. I would argue that it's certainly not more complex than JavaScript, and in many cases, is easier simply because there are fewer "gotcha" edge cases that impact new developers. And Go is slowly eliminating those gotchas (such as the loop variable shadowing issue).
Your argument holds for Rust v JS; the Rust learning curve is higher, and you have to understand many more technical computing topics to write good code. But I don't think the same holds for Go. Anyone capable of learning JS is capable of learning Go, in nearly the same time.
Maybe you're saying that there's a veritable legion of JS script monkeys, and so it's cheaper because of supply and demand. I'd agree with that. JS programming skills are certainly far more fungible between companies, which encourages new developers to choose it. I just don't think it has as much to do with language complexity or difficulty.
A typical data center rack holds about 40 servers, each with at least two networking interfaces. According to Boote, the Ethernet interfaces of a single rack draw 160 watts in total.
“Reducing the power draw of a data center, which may have hundreds or thousands of racks, would be akin to an energy savings of switching a building from incandescent to more energy efficient LED lighting and be well worth the investment,” he told LinuxInsider.
According to Boote, this optimization fixes a part of the kernel written when lower-speed Ethernet interfaces drew a fraction of today’s electrical needs. The networking stack design did not account for the growing power budget required by modern networking interfaces.
“By changing the priority of how the computers schedule tasks during high bandwidth events, a computer can better deal with networking traffic and prioritize energy expenditure in a way that makes sense for modern hardware and architectures,” he reasoned.
He explained that IRQ suspension enhances network performance while maintaining low latency during low-traffic conditions by reducing unnecessary CPU interruptions during high-traffic periods.
He explained that IRQ suspension enhances network performance ... by reducing unnecessary CPU interruptions during high-traffic periods. It also maintains low latency during low-traffic conditions.
He explained that IRQ suspension enhances network performance, while maintaining low latency during low-traffic conditions. It accomplishes this by reducing unnecessary CPU interruptions during high-traffic periods.
Maybe that makes more sense? The original was definitely a run-on sentence, and needed some punctuation.