> You are an extreme minority, and often any other visitor to a website who "looks like" you are malicious. Not really, a significant amount of the world brows

> You are an extreme minority, and often any other visitor to a website who "looks like" you are malicious. Not really, a significant amount of the world browse the internet with a bandwidth marginally better than dial-up. A significant amount of the world browses the internet via something barely passable as a smartphone. A significant amount of the world do not have < 200ms ping. > Why would anyone invest significant engineering time to placate a userbase that's far far smaller than Internet Explorer 10 usage? The sort of person that can run a website and use a JS framework should not find static HTML a 'significant' effort. It could most definitely be automated. Other points: 1. Increase accessibility. JS users will not be affected by not having JS. Your random JS will not always render the same. That CDN you link to might not be accessible everywhere. 2. Decrease bandwidth. Instead of just the content (and a little markup), you now have to load content + JS. 3. Decrease computation. The majority of the world accesses the internet through some device running on a battery. Instead of forcing all of those people to render your site individually, it makes tonnes more sense to render it once on the server end.