> For example, you tend to have a significantly snappier user interface without having to resort to complex and error-prone nested caching schemes. Depends on

> For example, you tend to have a significantly snappier user interface without having to resort to complex and error-prone nested caching schemes. Depends on how you define "snappy"… the ability to use a lot of seemingly live interactions? Yes, but… We found that all the client-side templating was a client-side slow-down. Charm did not have a ultra simple UI like Twitter (not that they're a fabulous example of client-side MVC success, but there you go). Which is why sending packets of HTML would actually be faster. Insertion of HTML is faster on the client-side. The exception would be if you're sending a LOT of HTML, vs the amount of bits the JSON formatting takes up. Depends on where the complexity is. We didn't have server-side performance problems for rendering.