I agree that there is a point where SPA's make sense. Like Gmail. If a user logs in, they're probably going to stay a while and use quite a few features. But I'

I agree that there is a point where SPA's make sense. Like Gmail. If a user logs in, they're probably going to stay a while and use quite a few features. But I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of NYT visitors will load just one page and then navigate away. If someone is browsing their search results and EVERY website developer assumes that their visitor is in-it for the long haul, that one user is going to consume 12mb of data to load 3 pages off of 3 different domains. I believe the point of the post wasn't to demonize Javascript, but to point out that there are a lot of low-hanging fruit in the world of web design and that it takes very little effort for developers to simply look at their design in terms of respecting users bandwidth and only using what you need to get your message across. NYT sent this guy 2.8mb of data from 5 different domains to communicate 9037 bytes of requested content. That should resonate with anyone using multiple Javascript libraries, especially the ones who are offended.