Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Dust.js vs Pure.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 Pure.js is ranked 28th. The most important reason people chose Dust.js is:
Easily extendable using filters and helpers. Can consume any public API.
Question Ranking
Pros
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.
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.
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.
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.
Con Not enough separation
The controller knows too much about the template.
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.
