When comparing Pug vs Dust.js, the Slant community recommends Dust.js for most people. In the question“What are the best JavaScript templating engines?” Dust.js is ranked 9th while Pug is ranked 18th. The most important reason people chose Dust.js is:
Easily extendable using filters and helpers. Can consume any public API.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Fantastic companion
Pugs where originally breed for royalty in China, to then be found with royalty in Europe. They were meant only as companion dogs with no other purpose and as such are quit chill. They tend to sleep a lot and are very attached to their owners. While needy at times they are definitely a good breed for those that want a relaxed dog that will spend all of its time with the owner.
This also means they are good with children as they tend to be a relaxed dog as well as a bit meaty, in that a small child can not always easily pick it up, which could potentially hurt a smaller more frail dog.
Pro Filters
Easily extendable using filters and helpers. Can consume any public API.
Pro Cache templates at the client side
Dust.js compiles its templates to plain old javascript, and since javascript files are cacheable, that essentially means your templates can be cached at the client side.
Pro Write once run anywhere
Since Dust's templates are written in JS, there's nothing stopping you from running the same DustJS code both on the client as well as server side (if it supports V8/Rhino JS engine).
Pro Interactive tutorial
Dust.js is quite easy to begin with, thanks to it's powerful interactive tutorial.
Cons
Con There are no new releases
And apparently Linkedin will not support it more.
Con Not enough community support
Since the number of people currently using Dust.js is quite insignificant as compared to Mustache js and Handlebars, you're less likely to get your question answered or issue resolved if you start using it.