Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Mustache.js vs Dust.js, the Slant community recommends Mustache.js for most people. In the question“What are the best JavaScript templating engines?” Mustache.js is ranked 4th while Dust.js is ranked 9th. The most important reason people chose Mustache.js is:
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.
Question Ranking
Pros
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Pro Popular
This would mean that you'll have a large community to help you out if you run into any problems.
Pro Can be compiled
Mustache templates can be compiled to JS files, so that they can be directly loaded.
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 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.
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.
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.
