If you’re only serving up heavyweight web apps, then this is probably true.

But Caddy also markets itself as an efficient static file webserver right on the home page:

> Caddy is both a flexible, efficient static file server and a powerful, scalable reverse proxy.

Perhaps the confusing part is the way that Caddy is marketed as “The Ultimate Server” when instead it’s designed to be a fast-enough reverse proxy for applications where performance doesn’t matter. There are many applications where performance really does matter. Static file serving is the most obvious example.

> There are many applications where performance really does matter.

Like what? Genuine question. I'm sure a cloud provider's layer 7 load balancer / Kubernetes Ingress would merit an optimized implementation but beyond those kinds of super-scale use cases I can't think of much.

As the other person that answered to you pointed out, there's a point where your HTTP server becomes the bottleneck, ie your backend being more concurrent and faster at producing content than your server is at delivering it.

But I feel the real bottleneck is developer pain. I switched to nginx from Apache like everyone else because nginx was nice to use and Apache wasn't. The performance aspect was only a rationalization.

What was not so nice about Apache?

Mentioning without context sounds like an emotional one.

I found Apache configuration to be cumbersome and hard to read, with nginx being comparatively clean and making reverse-proxying and caching easy. Keep in mind that was other a decade ago. I don't know where Apache is now, it's not something I have reassessed and I don't know if I would make the same choices with my current experience.

No. But looking at the site Caddy appears to be a product for easy and quick deployment, so that zero-knowledge people can run a web server. Their point is unlikely to be performance, it is probably in the lines of "low code".