Introducing
The Slant team built an AI & it’s awesome
Find the best product instantly
Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to Safari
Try it now
4.7 star rating
0
What is the best alternative to FLAVE?
Ad
Ad
Mustache.js
All
9
Experiences
Pros
7
Cons
2
Top
Pro
Clean syntax
Mustache provides you with a clean and easy to understand syntax. Having a syntax that is readable is always a huge plus, since this means easier maintenance and code readability in the future.
See More
Top
Con
Basic tasks are difficult
Mustache js's attempts at making some things simple makes them so easy that they're almost difficult. That is the case with some basic tasks like figuring out how to apply css to shade odd/even rows on your template based content.
See More
Top
Pro
Available in lots of languages
Available in a wide variety of languages including Ruby, JavaScript, Python, C++, Scala, Go, Julia, Swift and more. See the full list here.
See More
Top
Con
Bested by Handlebars in many ways
Handlebars being an extension of Mustache bests it in both speed and power. It adds additional features to Mustache which make writing templates easier and faster. Benchmarks have also shown that Precompiled Handlebars renders in about half the time of Mustache and the rewritten Handlebars (current version) is 5 to 7 times faster than Mustache.
See More
Top
Pro
Lightweight
Mustache is easy to deliver. If you need more features down the road, you can switch to handlebars, which is a superset of Mustache.
See More
Top
Pro
Logic-less
By design logic-less templates force you to separate concerns thus helping you avoid future problems with refactoring. It also allow templates to be used with multiple programming languages without changes.
See More
Top
Pro
Server side support
Mustache.js has multi-language server side support, which essentially means you can use mustache based templates on languages other than javascript. (like if your server-side was built on Java you could still use Mustache.js)
See More
Top
Pro
Popular
This would mean that you'll have a large community to help you out if you run into any problems.
See More
Top
Pro
Can be compiled
Mustache templates can be compiled to JS files, so that they can be directly loaded.
See More
Hide
See All
Experiences
Get it
here
23
6
Webix
All
11
Experiences
Pros
8
Cons
3
Top
Pro
A lot of widgets
Webix is one of the most extensive UI component libraries, second only to Sencha ExtJS. Not only considering the number of widgets, but also the API methods for manipulating these widgets.
See More
Top
Con
Commercial license
It's not free for commercial applications.
See More
Top
Pro
Views can be constructed using JavaScript without HTML
The most common way of working with webix is to create a JSON configuration of your view in JavaScript. When you use TypeScript, you get complete typechecking and intellisense in your IDE.
See More
Top
Con
Not very popular
Not really a reason to not recommend it. But it has still a small user base. It deserves a lot more attention.
See More
Top
Pro
Seems to be quite stable
Even the most complicated GUIs are bug-free most of the time.
See More
Top
Con
Not modular
The library is not modular (except for some additional more complex widgets). If you only need a few widgets, you still need to include the entire library.
See More
Top
Pro
Webix Jet
The webix Jet library adds all the required features for SPA development (routing, template loading, ...)
See More
Top
Pro
Extremely simple to implement.
To get started is extremely simple. It has a low learning curve.
See More
Top
Pro
Mature project
Regular updates and releases.
See More
Top
Pro
Great support from the webix team
The company behind webix is really quick in answering any questions you have on their forum or via email.
See More
Top
Pro
Awesome responsive material skins
Great design and icons pack.
See More
Hide
See All
Experiences
$0-$469
54
4
EJS
All
7
Experiences
Pros
5
Cons
2
Top
Pro
Complete JavaScript logic
EJS uses all the JS jargon and logic, so if you're proficient in JS, you can use EJS right away.
See More
Top
Con
No support for block by default
EJS has no support for the block functionality which allows you to reuse pieces of templates across different files. Although it can be added to EJS through a third-party library.
See More
Top
Pro
Same language before and after rendering
Your html/text remains pretty much the same before and after rendering. EJS filters out and performs its functions on any occurrences of its own <%= %> tags in your template.
See More
Top
Con
Cryptic syntax
Much more difficult to read, especially for designer/HTML people who don't write JavaScript.
See More
Top
Pro
Lightning-fast to learn
EJS introduces fairly small amount of new syntax that one has to learn to become fully proficient. The syntax itself is easy to comprehend for anyone who is even somewhat familiar with JavaScript and CSS.
See More
Top
Pro
Consistently scores rather well in benchmarks
According to some benchmark tests, EJS is way faster than Jade or Haml.
See More
Top
Pro
Powerful error handling
EJS has a really smart error handling mechanism built right into it. It points out to you, the line numbers on which an error has occurred, so that you don't end up looking through the whole template file wasting your time in searching for bugs.
See More
Hide
See All
Experiences
Get it
here
38
4
vash
All
5
Experiences
Pros
5
Top
Pro
Plays well with handlebars
See More
Top
Pro
Minimal syntax
http://emblemjs.com/syntax/
See More
Top
Pro
Helper system
https://github.com/kirbysayshi/vash#helper-system
See More
Top
Pro
Intelligent code inlining
Vash knows JS. https://github.com/kirbysayshi/vash#advanced-expressions
See More
Top
Pro
Full power of JS
See More
Hide
Get it
here
2
0
Dust.js
All
6
Experiences
Pros
4
Cons
2
Top
Pro
Filters
Easily extendable using filters and helpers. Can consume any public API.
See More
Top
Con
There are no new releases
And apparently Linkedin will not support it more.
See More
Top
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.
See More
Top
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.
See More
Top
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).
See More
Top
Pro
Interactive tutorial
Dust.js is quite easy to begin with, thanks to it's powerful interactive tutorial.
See More
Hide
Get it
here
12
3
XSLT in-browser implementation
All
10
Experiences
Pros
7
Cons
3
Top
Pro
Permits pipelining
I.e. apply one template on top of another.
See More
Top
Con
Lack of SDLC for in-browser development
It will take time to collect complete gentleman set: debugging, modular development, documenting, unit tests, etc. Please share if know the book on subject.
See More
Top
Pro
AOP model
With ability to split feature implementation apart from main codebase, development became quite more manageable. Example: for data of particular type you could define own rendering or render refine rules; pipelining allows incrementally change UI by adding/removing elements depend of parameters, data values, previously rendered content.
See More
Top
Con
Verbose syntax
Takes time to get used to.
See More
Top
Pro
Native multithreaded implementation
Only template engine which utilizes multithreading.
See More
Top
Con
AOP model
Is complex to comprehend, justifiable on complex projects.
See More
Top
Pro
Native pre-compilation available
In some browsers(IE) XSLT during load is compiled into DLL. In others pre-loaded template allows to skip recurring parsing .
See More
Top
Pro
Accept native data out of JS heap
XML when stored, saved outside of JS heap, capable to work with amount of data 100x larger of JSON.
See More
Top
Pro
Native implementation
Supported in all browsers, starting from IE5.
See More
Top
Pro
Server side rendering
XSLT is available as in browser as on server side via various libs including highly optimized for CPU.
See More
Hide
See All
Experiences
0
1
0
Handlebars.js
All
17
Experiences
Pros
12
Cons
5
Top
Pro
Multiple implementations
Handlebars is available as a JavaScript library, a Django module as well as Java, Ruby, Scala, .Net & PHP libraries, which means you can use it for frontend and backend templating in the language of your choice.
See More
Top
Con
Hard to use documentation
Although the documentation exists and is fairly comprehensive, it's not always clearly written, and there is no search capacity.
See More
Top
Pro
Clean syntax
Handlebars's syntax is very readable and easy to understand.
See More
Top
Con
Handlebars are still an HTML code
Handlebars use the standard HTML syntax with its own {{tags}} for templating. This doesn't add much to readability or design speed.
See More
Top
Pro
Clear separation of logic and markup
If something is not within {{ and }}, it's not Handlebars. As a result, Handlebars "weaves" through HTML, instead of trying to become an invalid extension of it.
See More
Top
Con
Using partials is cumbersome
"In order to use a partial, it must be registered" using some JavaScript method attached to some global variable.
See More
Top
Pro
Copy/Paste code from the internet
Examples for Bootstrap or other CSS frameworks are always in HTML. With Handlebards you can just copy and paste the examples in your code. With something like Pug (Jade) you have to convert the HTML to Pug (Jade) first.
See More
Top
Con
Not much editor support
Handlebars.js doesn't seem to have many text editors that support things like auto-complete, syntax highlighting or error checking for it.
See More
Top
Pro
Easy to use for templating things other than HTML
The syntax allows the output to be any text and does not contrain the user to HTML output only. There are examples of handlebars being used to produce SQL, javascript and other programming language code.
See More
Top
Con
Does not play well with Angular.js
.. or any framework where you wish to compile handlebars.js template to the template understanable by the framework.
See More
Top
Pro
Easy to use any template also as partials
Templates may be nested and reusable parts can be factored out.
See More
Top
Pro
Compiled rather than interpreted templates
Handlebars.js allows you to pre-compile your templates so that the loading time at the client end could be reduced when your templated page is loaded.
See More
Top
Pro
Mustache compatible
You can import Mustache templates and add extra functionality, that's provided by Handlebars, on top of them.
See More
Top
Pro
Good global helpers support
See More
Top
Pro
Logic-less
By design, logic-less templates force you to separate concerns thus helping you avoid future problems with refactoring. It also allow templates to be used with multiple programming languages without changes.
See More
Top
Pro
Good paths support
With Handlebars.js you can create bindings with variables inside any path in your application.
See More
Top
Pro
Easy to define extensions
With a few lines of code, a new extension (control or templating function) can be implemented. It will be called by the compiled templates.
See More
Hide
See All
Experiences
Get it
here
96
20
Underscore Templates
All
3
Experiences
Pros
2
Cons
1
Top
Con
Not a true templating engine
template in underscore is simply a function which compiles a piece of template into HTML. It's useful for rendering HTML from JSON and it's not very useful when building complex frontend templates.
See More
Top
Pro
For micro templating
Due to Underscore's optimized performance and ease-of-use it can be deemed as most fit for use in small sections of your code, where you just want a quick and simple template to render your content.
See More
Top
Pro
Pre-compilation
Underscore allows you to compile your template once before data is inserted to it.
See More
Hide
Get it
here
14
4
pug (Jade)
All
18
Experiences
Pros
12
Cons
5
Specs
Top
Pro
Easy to read, powerful mixins
Jade supports mixins. These not only make your templating job easier but are also super-easy to read.
See More
Top
Con
Cannot copy/paste examples from the internet
Examples from CSS frameworks like Bootstrap are never utilizing the Pug syntax, which means that you cannot ever copy/paste something to quickly see how it would look or if it works. You would have to convert the HTML to Pug first.
See More
Top
Pro
Logic done in JavaScript
The logic in Jade is done with native JavaScript. This means there's less of a learning curve and it'll be easier to get other developers up to speed.
See More
Top
Con
Unforgiving in case of indentation errors
The structure is entirely determined by the indentation. That means that indentation errors will ruin the end result, often without an easy way to find the error. Indentation errors are easily introduced by copy-pasting, by rearranging code and by working in a team where not everyone uses the same indentation style. (E.g tabs vs. spaces.)
See More
Top
Pro
Clean syntax
One of the distinguishing features of Jade is its clean syntax. Elements are created with CSS selector syntax which makes the template consistent with your style sheet and JavaScript element selector library.
See More
Top
Con
off-side rule templating language not working well with native HTML
plain HTML pages usually can contain very deeply nested structures, whether they are hand-written by web UI designers or generated from popular web design tools or taken from existing HTML templates, which are a nightmare for front-end engineers to convert into Pug templates, where you have to take care of handling the indentation rules and the deeply nested HTML elements, even creating multiple blocks that don't have any meaning in terms of business logic, just to house the HTML elements within bearable amounts of indentations. Pug templates are nice for Python programmers who don't want to learn HTML to start writing web pages and develop some entire websites personally from the ground up, but for any serious project that involves more than half a dozen people and has separate positions of web UI designers, front-end developers, and back-end engineers, it's much better to choose something more closely compatible with native HTML as the template engine. Pug is simply too alien from native HTML and resembles a lot more like those other off-side rule languages like Python.
See More
Top
Pro
Identation reflects nesting
With Jade you can quickly overview the hierarchy of a template.
See More
Top
Con
Bad performance
Bad sintaxe (Short-hand HTML) and bad performance. No streaming or asynchronous calls. https://github.com/mauricionobrega/nodejs-template-benchmark
See More
Top
Pro
High performance on the server and client side
Apart from their functionality all template engines need to be efficient in terms of the time they require to render a page. Jade beats most of its competitors in this area, it is highly optimized to deliver good performance on both the server and client ends.
See More
Top
Con
Performance is not great compared to other popular templating engines
See More
Top
Pro
Easy sublayouts using block and extends
By using the extends and block keywords, sublayouts can be made with intuitive syntax.
See More
Top
Pro
Preprocessor support
Filters make it easy to embed compiled languages such as coffeescript or markdown directly into the template. A filter will allow you to keep your inline code and content consistent with the rest of your codebase so you can continue using your prefered language with your outputted HTML.
See More
Top
Pro
Allows writing inline JavaScript
Jade allows embedding regular JavaScript code directly within the template.
See More
Top
Pro
Reuse code in other languages
In addition to JavaScript, you can reuse Jade templates in Scala, PHP, Ruby, Python and Java.
See More
Top
Pro
Interactive documentation
There's an interactive documentation available here that allows you to play around with code examples and watch the results in real time.
See More
Top
Pro
Compiles to JavaScript
Jade compiles to a JavaScript function that produces the ultimate output. This interim format makes it useful for embedding in conditions where you're trying to save space or decrease processing requirements.
See More
Top
Pro
Use Markdown for readable markup
Jade is awesome at templating structural markup, but that's not all Jade is awesome at. It also allows you to use markdown within your template itself which will render to a beautiful HTML page.
See More
Specs
Repository:
https://github.com/pugjs/pug
Hide
See All
Experiences
Get it
here
204
39
Marko
All
21
Experiences
Pros
19
Cons
2
Top
Pro
Extremely fast
Marko consistently outperforms other alternatives in code benchmarks, both on rendering speed and compilation time.
See More
Top
Con
If you want to get the full experience you have to use NodeJS
To use markojs's most popular feature: SSR although you can use any language based server as a backend. It is rather complicated.
See More
Top
Pro
Custom tags
Custom tags provide a simple mechanism for embedding more complex components into a template by extending the HTML grammar with support for new tags. For example: <div> <say-hello name="World"/> </div> Custom tags are easy to create since they just map to a JavaScript "renderer" function as shown below: module.exports = function sayHelloRenderer(input, out) { out.write('Hello ' + input.name + '!'); } Custom tags support nested content: <fancy-overlay title="My Title"> This will be the body content of the overlay </fancy-overlay> Custom tags can also have parent/child relationships to support more complex use cases such a "tabs" component with nested "tab" components: <fancy-tabs> <fancy-tabs:tab label="Home"> Content for Home </fancy-tabs:tab> <fancy-tabs:tab label="Profile"> Content for Profile </fancy-tabs:tab> <fancy-tabs:tab label="Messages"> Content for Messages </fancy-tabs:tab> </fancy-tabs>
See More
Top
Con
Very opinionated and not customizable enough
Some custom use cases are not possible. For example, trying to build an AMP page using Marko can be very challenging (special style tag requirements are hard to work with, also, Marko by default inserts a script tag into the rendered output html which is invalid in AMP and needs to be manually removed, etc..)
See More
Top
Pro
Streaming
Streaming allows progressive HTML rendering and reduces time to first byte.
See More
Top
Pro
Server-side rendering
Marko supports both server-side and client-side rendering.
See More
Top
Pro
Marko Widgets
Marko Widgets allows UI components (rendering + behavior) to be built using Marko.
See More
Top
Pro
Compiled templates are readable CommonJS modules
Avoids ugly globals and "named" templates. var template = require('./template.marko'); var html = template.renderSync({name: 'Frank'});
See More
Top
Pro
Asynchronous rendering
Marko makes additional asynchronous calls after the view rendering has begun.
See More
Top
Pro
Lightweight runtime (~4 KB gzip)
See More
Top
Pro
Easy to integrate with express.js
Easy Integration with Express and Node
See More
Top
Pro
Documentation is well maintained and helpful
The documentation is extensive and very helpful. It also contains several sample applications which are very useful.
See More
Top
Pro
Allows JavaScript expressions
JavaScript expressions can be executed inside the templates.
See More
Top
Pro
Simple and readable syntax
Marko has a HTML-like syntax which should be easy to read and understand for everyone who has even minimal experience in web development.
See More
Top
Pro
Short learning curve
It is easy to get up to speed and understand what is going on in a very short period of time.
See More
Top
Pro
Small compiled templates
Marko's compiled templates are usually very small, as proven by benchmarks.
See More
Top
Pro
Lots of tests
To prevent regressions, Marko includes a full suite of tests. The testing harness renders a collection of templates and does an exact string comparison to make sure that the tests rendered exactly as expected. There are also API tests, and negative tests to make sure that errors are reported in a friendly way. To run tests: git clone https://github.com/marko-js/marko cd marko npm install npm test
See More
Top
Pro
Friendly compile-time error messages
Error messages come in an easy to read and friendly format, with valid stack traces and file formats of the file(s) which brought the error(s).
See More
Top
Pro
Concise and Mixed syntax
The Concise syntax type lets you write Marko with a Jade-like indentation based syntax, and the Mixed mode lets you combine in regular HTML-style syntax.
See More
Top
Pro
Server and client logic can easily be expressed within the same template
See More
Top
Pro
Has a very active and interactive community
Marko's development community is rather small compared to other frameworks but community is well mannered and active. You can chat with the core development team using gitter.im
See More
Hide
See All
Experiences
Get it
here
56
16
Vue.js
All
15
Experiences
Pros
12
Cons
2
Specs
Top
Pro
Can be used with any front-end stack
Vue can easily be integrated with other front-end libraries. This makes it an extremely versatile tool and it's easy to fix its shortcomings or missing features by just plugging in another library.
See More
Top
Con
Poor typescript support
Very basic typescript support.
See More
Top
Pro
Single file component
Very useful.
See More
Top
Con
Very enterpris-ey in design and tooling
See More
Top
Pro
Lightweight
Vue.js weighs in at 16kb min+gzip.
See More
Top
Pro
Vuex store, events system
See More
Top
Pro
Reactivity system
See More
Top
Pro
CLI and Webpack integration
See More
Top
Pro
Responsive server-side rendering
Since most of the mainstream server-side rendering implementations are synchronous, they can block the server's event loop when the application is complex. Vue implements streaming server-side rendering, which allows you to render your component, get a readable stream and directly pipe that to the HTTP response. This allows you to have a responsive server and decreases the time your users have to wait before they get your rendered content.
See More
Top
Pro
Supports inline templating
Although you can build components in JavaScript files, you can also use inline handlebars-like templating in your HTML views where simplicity is often a more sane choice.
See More
Top
Pro
Can be made even lighter
Since the template-to-virtual-DOM and compiler can be separated, you can compile the templates in your machine and then deploying only the interpreter which is 12KB minified and gzipped.
See More
Top
Pro
Support for both templates and JSX
You can choose to use either a templating language, or if you feel it's necessary to drop on a lower virtual-dom level, you can use JSX. This is simply done by replacing the template option with a render function. Or alternatively, you can embed functions inside templates by using the <render> tag.
See More
Top
Pro
SEO friendly
Starting with Vue 2.0, Vue supports server-side rendering. This helps with SEO a lot, since the views are rendered directly on the server, which are indexed by search engines.
See More
Top
Pro
VueRouter
See More
Specs
GZipped size:
~30KB
Repository:
https://github.com/vuejs/vue
Hide
See All
Experiences
Get it
here
520
128
React
All
25
Experiences
Pros
16
Cons
8
Specs
Top
Pro
Easy to reuse components
Since every single UI component is created independently in JavaScript, it becomes very easy to reuse them throughout your app without having to re-write them.
See More
Top
Con
Heavy on memory
React's virtual DOM is fast, but it requires storing elements in the virtual and real DOM increasing memory usage for the page. This can be a real problem for single-page webapps designed to be left running in the background.
See More
Top
Pro
Supported by Facebook and Instagram
React is built by Facebook engineers initially to be used only for their inner projects especially to solve the problem of building large complex applications with constantly changing data.
See More
Top
Con
Template(view) mixed into code
See More
Top
Pro
Server side rendering
React can render it's components and data server side, then it sends those components as HTML to the browser. This ensures faster initial loading time and SEO friendliness out of the box, since it's indexed as any other static website by search engines.
See More
Top
Con
Verbose
React gets a little verbose as applications get more complicated with more components. It's simply not as straightforward as simply writing HTML and JavaScript would be.
See More
Top
Pro
Virtual DOM support
Instead of relying on the DOM, React implements a virtual DOM from scratch, allowing it to calculate precisely what needs to be patched during the next screen refresh. This is orders of magnitude faster than fiddling with the DOM itself.
See More
Top
Con
You have to learn a new syntax
Requires learning a custom syntax, JSX, that has some gotchas and introduce complexity, a steeper learning curve, and incompatibility with other tools. Though you can opt out from JSX and use vanilla JS instead. But that is not recommended since it adds a lot of unneeded complexity which JSX tries to avoid.
See More
Top
Pro
One-way data flow
React's one-way data binding (or one-way data flow) means that it's easy to see where and how your UI is updated and where you need to make changes. It's also very easy to keep everything modular, fast and well-organized.
See More
Top
Con
Not a complete solution
React does not do everything for the developer, it's merely a tool for building the UI of a web app. It does not have support for routing or models, at least not out of the box. While some missing features can be added through libraries, to start using React and use it in production, you still would need to have experience, or at least a good grasp on what the best libraries to use would be.
See More
Top
Pro
Can be used with different libraries
ReactJS can be used independently as the only library for building the front-end, or it can be used alongside JavaScript libraries such as jQuery, or even Angular.
See More
Top
Con
Large file size
React's react.min.js is 145.5KB in size. It's much larger than some other libraries that offer roughly the same features and it's almost the same size as some MV* frameworks such as Angular or Ember that offer more features out of the box. Although, it should be mentioned that sometimes having a smaller library may force developers to reinvent the wheel and write inefficient implementations on features that React already has. Ending up with a larger application that's harder to maintain and/or that has bad performance.
See More
Top
Pro
Template engine independent
React provides a template engine (JSX) which is easy to use. But it's not mandatory.
See More
Top
Con
Renders too frequently
See More
Top
Pro
Widely used
The framework is widely used in the industry.
See More
Top
Con
No support for legacy browsers
React has recently dropped support for Internet Explorer 8. While the library may still work on IE8, issues that affect only IE8 will not be prioritized and/or solved.
See More
Top
Pro
Functional programming style leads to less buggy UIs
See More
Top
Pro
Easy to write tests
Since React's virtual DOM system is implemented completely in JavaScript, it's very easy to write UI test cases.
See More
Top
Pro
Good debugging tools
React has an official Chrome Extension which is used as a developing and debugging tool. It can be used to quickly and painlessly debug your application or view the whole application structure as it's rendered.
See More
Top
Pro
Flux architecture pattern
Flux is a platform agnostic pattern which can technically be used with any application or programming language. One of Flux' main features is that it enforces uni-directional data flow which means that views do not change the data directly. With React this is useful because this way it's easier to understand an application as it starts getting more complicated. By having two-way data binding, lead to unpredictable changes, where changing one model's data would end up updating another model. By using the Flux architecture, this can be avoided.
See More
Top
Pro
Extensive SVG support
Since React v0.15, SVG is fully supported. React supports all SVG attributes that are recognized by today's browsers.
See More
Top
Pro
Keep control over your app's logic
React is just a view library, so you still have (almost) full control over how your app behaves.
See More
Top
Pro
Supported by ClojureScript libraries
Reagent, Om, Rum, etc.
See More
Top
Pro
Tested on Facebook itself
React is used on one of the most visited websites on the planet, Facebook. With stellar results and with millions of people experiencing it every day.
See More
Specs
GZipped size:
45K
Hide
See All
Experiences
Get it
here
246
101
swig
All
3
Experiences
Pros
2
Cons
1
Top
Con
No updates for at least 6 months
Swig has not received any new commits since June 25 2015.
See More
Top
Pro
Works both on the client and on the server
Available for node.js and major web browsers
See More
Top
Pro
Does not hide HTML
Swig does not abstract HTML syntax from you (like e.g. Jade does) giving a certain filling of control over the markup.
See More
Hide
Get it
here
7
5
Closure Templates
All
7
Experiences
Pros
4
Cons
3
Top
Pro
Language independent
The same template written in Closure would work both on Java as well as javascript.
See More
Top
Con
Hard to find what you need in documentation
Docs are pretty, but hard to find exactly what you need. Although language has nice macros, you're going to hate them when they fail and you search for info for half an hour.
See More
Top
Pro
Well Tested and used by Gmail and Google Docs
Closure Templates being a project created by Google, is extensively used in some of the world's most famous and largest web apps which include Gmail and Google Docs. What this means for you is that you'll be using a Template engine that has not only been intensively tested but also that you'll be in good company, with lots of technical support.
See More
Top
Con
Strange errors from compiler
You won't get used to them even after a while.
See More
Top
Pro
Secure
Closure has been designed keeping most security risks in mind. Templates created using Closure are auto-escaped automatically. Hence you won't have to worry about any XSS attacks.
See More
Top
Con
Not widely used outside of Google
Closure Templates are mostly used in projects developed by Google and not in projects by third-parties. As such, it's unlikely for further versions to be released or for changes to be merged.
See More
Top
Pro
High Performance
Closure templates do not tend to slow down your site's performance or increase your page load time. They're compiled to extremely efficient JS code so that your page renders extremely fast, whether the templating is done on the client end or the server end.
See More
Hide
See All
Experiences
Get it
here
4
3
Pure.js
All
4
Experiences
Pros
1
Cons
3
Top
Con
Injection not explicit in template
Looking at the template, we cannot see where content will be injected. Instead, all we see are empty tags.
See More
Top
Pro
Automatically extends JavaScript libraries available
If a Javascript library is available in the page when it's loaded, Pure will automatically extend it to use it inside the templates.
See More
Top
Con
Not enough separation
The controller knows too much about the template.
See More
Top
Con
Not many reasources outside the official documentation
PureJS is not very popular and it's not used by many. Because of this, there are not many guides or tutorials out there for Pure.js other than the official documentation.
See More
Hide
Get it
here
2
3
Json2html
All
4
Experiences
Pros
3
Cons
1
Top
Con
Templates can be hard to read
HTML structure for template replicated in JSON, can be hard to read.
See More
Top
Pro
Embedded jQuery Events
Allows for jQuery events to be embedded within the template when used on the client.
See More
Top
Pro
No special template syntax to learn
Templates are JSON objects that can include javascript functions to render any complex logic.
See More
Top
Pro
Portable to server and client
Templates are stored as JSON rather than HTML, easily ported to both client and server.
See More
Hide
Get it
here
1
3
Built By the Slant team
Find the best product instantly.
4.7 star rating
Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to Safari
Try it now - it's free
{}
undefined
url next
price drop