> Doing this is a horrible waste of resources. It's not really: we don't have a proper caching infrastructure anyway to conserve both CPU cycles and bandwidth

> Doing this is a horrible waste of resources. It's not really: we don't have a proper caching infrastructure anyway to conserve both CPU cycles and bandwidth by allowing the whole page to be cached and just minor fragments to be loaded dynamically. Back in the days, when most individuals/offices/ISPs would have some sort of cascaded Squid setup, it was more helpful. As for caching in the client itself: possible and useful (provided the user will load the page many times per day), but not helping with the "re-rendering for each user" part as far as bandwidth is concerned. The rendering effort itself is largely a non-issue. If your web framework is inefficient and you run out of juice on the server side, you can simply cache the static parts of your page with memcached or even use some setup with ESI on a load balancer.