In reply to Daniel Demmel.

Oh, I'm not attacking the approach and/or tools of your solution. Sorry if that's what got through.

I just wonder what it's performance would be without all the caching layers, because you know, even a crappy non-optimized way-too-many-db-requests theme/website can be served extremely fast if: "We have everything served up from a CDN, and by that we mean that ustwo.com is pointed at the CDN URL on a DNS level!"

I'm in no position to judge as I'm only now learning JS, but hearing the community shout that the JS approach is native-level fast, super-uber-hyper-easy, and quite a lot of other nonsense really, well, that by itself is a reason of why I would love to see a comparison like the one I mentioned.

I'm all in for the tools that get the job done, and kudos for doing it the way you did.
However, as far as the end user is concerned, it's just a fast website. In the eyes of a [front|end] webdev who won't look at the page source / dev tools, it's something doable with a plain old theme, some ajax and loads of caching.

That being said, I'm not dismissing the "new" tools. All I'm saying is that it could have been made in a different, or more "traditional" way, and makes it look that it was done like it's done just for the novelty of it.

I think the "wow" factor you were trying to achieve is for the webdev community, not your actual customers, and indeed you have achieved it, so, bravo!