When comparing Ractive.js vs Marko Widgets, the Slant community recommends Ractive.js for most people. In the question“What are the best JavaScript libraries for building a UI?” Ractive.js is ranked 7th while Marko Widgets is ranked 17th. The most important reason people chose Ractive.js is:
Ractive fully supports a templating language. To be more precise, views are written with a variant of Mustache, which is also extended to support inline JavaScript expressions. Soon it will be able to support other templating languages.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Supports a true templating language
Ractive fully supports a templating language. To be more precise, views are written with a variant of Mustache, which is also extended to support inline JavaScript expressions. Soon it will be able to support other templating languages.
Pro Makes it possible to handle user interaction in a readable, declarative fashion
Ractive has a concept of proxy events, which translate a user action (e.g. a mouseclick) defined via an event directive into an intention (e.g. 'select this option'). This allows you to handle user interaction in a readable, declarative fashion.on-click='activate'
with arguments:on-click = 'activate: {{a}}, {{b}}'
It's activate
(and not click
, nor your function name) that is the name of the handler event that will be fired for any registered handlers created viaractive.on('activate', your_handler)
ractive.on('activate', your_another_handler)
Of course, Ractive also supports method calls like on-click='toggle(foo
)'
Pro Two-way binding configuration
Two-way binding can be turned off by those that are concerned it may be a source of bugs.
Pro Step by step tutorial
They have a great interactive tutorial which makes the learning process easy peasy. You will get into it within a couple of minutes.
Pro Virtual DOM
Instead of relying on the DOM, Ractive 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.
Pro Very fast on the server
Using Marko and Marko Widgets to render UI components on the server was shown to be 10x faster than React. A benchmark application was built using both Marko+Marko Widgets and React and the results of rendering a page of 100 search results on the server was measured and compared. Both the Marko Widgets code and the React code used a very similar UI components-based appraoch.
Pro Stateful UI components
Marko Widgets supports stateful UI components. Marko Widgets will automatically rerender a UI component if its internal state changes. A UI component's state is stored in the this.state
property that is a vanilla JavaScript object. All changes to the state should go through the this.setState(name, value)
method (or this.replaceState(newState)
)
Pro Very fast in the browser
Marko Widgets utilizes the morphdom module for updating the DOM and that module was shown to be very competitive with React and virtual-dom.
Pro The real DOM is the source of truth
Marko Widgets does not rely on a virtual DOM abstraction. Instead, the real DOM is always the source of truth. When updating the DOM, the newly rendered DOM is compared with the real DOM.
Pro DOM diffing/patching
Marko Widgets updates the DOM using a DOM diffing/patching algorithm to minimize the number of changes to the DOM when rerendering a UI component due to state changes. The DOM diffing/patching is handled by the independent morphdom library.
Pro Simple JavaScript API for rendering a UI component
The following code illustrates how the render(input)
method exported by a UI component's JavaScript module can be used to render a UI component and insert the resulting HTML into the DOM:
require('./app-hello')
.render({
name: 'John'
})
.appendTo(document.body)
Pro Batched updates
Updates to the DOM are deferred until all state changes have completed for the current tick. That is, changing a widget's state will not cause the UI component's DOM to immediately be updated.
Pro Declarative eventing binding
Marko Widgets offers a simple mechanism for declaratively binding DOM event and custom event listeners to widget handler methods. For example:
<button type="button" w-onClick="handleClick">
Click Me
</button>
And then in the JavaScript:
module.exports = require('marko-widgets').defineComponent({
// ...
handleClick: function(event, el) {
this.doSomething();
}
});
Pro Marko templating engine for the view
Marko is a fast and lightweight, general purpose HTML-based templating engine that compiles templates to CommonJS modules and supports streaming, async rendering and custom tags. Marko is used for rendering UI components and Marko Widgets is used to bind client-side behavior to rendered UI components. Marko can be used independently of Marko Widgets and this makes it suitable in all situations where HTML rendering is needed.
Pro Efficient binding of behavior for UI components rendered on the server.
When utilizing server-side rendering of a UI, Marko Widgets does not require that the UI be rerendered again in the browser just to bind behavior. Instead, extra information is passed down from the server to the client to allow Marko Widgets to efficiently bind widgets to UI components rendered on the server.
Pro Lightweight (~10 KB gzipped)
The runtime for Marko Widgets is extremely small. The runtime is very small and this makes Marko Widgets much simpler and easier to understand and debug. Marko Widgets offloads much of the work and complexity to compile time code so that the work required at runtime is minimal.
Pro Easily reference nested DOM elements and nested widgets
Marko Widgets supports the concept of "scoped" IDs. With scoped IDs, a nested DOM element or nested widget can be given an ID that is unique within the scope of the containing widget. At runtime the actual ID will be the scoped ID prefixed with the ID of the parent widget. A reference nested widget can be obtained using the this.getWidget(scopedId)
method and a reference to a nested DOM element can be obtained using the this.getEl(scopedId)
method.
For example:
<div class="my-app" w-bind>
<button type="button" w-onClick="handleButtonClick">
Click Me
</button>
<alert-overlay visible="false" w-id="alert">
This is a test alert.
</alert-overlay>
<div w-id="clickMessage" style="display: none;">
You clicked the button!
</div>
</div>
And then in the JavaScript code:
module.exports = require('marko-widgets').defineComponent({
// ...
handleButtonClick: function(event, el) {
var alertWidget = this.getWidget('alert');
// Call the `show()` function implemented by the alert widget:
alertWidget.show();
var clickMessageEl = this.getEl('clickMessage');
clickMessageEl.style.display = 'block';
}
});
Pro Efficient event delegation
Marko Widgets supports efficient event delegation to avoid attaching DOM event listeners to each DOM node. Instead, Marko Widgets attaches event listeners on the document.body
event for events that bubble. Events captured at the root are efficiently delegated out to widgets.
Pro UI components can be embedded in a Marko template using a custom tag
The following code illustrates how a UI component can be embedded in a Marko template:
<div>
<app-hello name="Frank"/>
</div>
Cons
Con Ractive's two way binding can be a source of bugs
Two-way data-binding means that a HTML element in the view and an Ractive model are binded, and when one of them is changed so is the other. One-way data-binding for example does not change the model when the HTML element is changed.
This is a rather controversial subject and many developers consider two-way data binding an anti-pattern and something that is useless in complex applications because it's very easy to create complex situations by using it and being unable to debug them easily or understand what's happening by just looking at the code.
However, this is the default behaviour which can be changed to have one-way data binding.
