> going to Basecamp, the entire time waiting in chrome ... is between 150-200ms The numbers in my comment are "without caching". Comparing them to Basecamp, wh

> going to Basecamp, the entire time waiting in chrome ... is between 150-200ms The numbers in my comment are "without caching". Comparing them to Basecamp, which caches views and fragments heavily, is apples to oranges. Once I add caching, my typical response times for a cache hit are in the 10s of milliseconds. You made an Amdahl's law argument that view caching is fruitless because rendering is an insignificant part of total response time. So I responded with uncached performance to show why Rails needs view caching. It's no accident that Rails has comprehensive caching support; that the Rails team has worked hard to refine and optimize caching in each release; and that DHH writes about it so often (including in this article). You can't have performant Rails without view caching because rendering is dog slow.