When comparing Dust.js vs Nunjucks, the Slant community recommends Nunjucks for most people. In the question“What are the best JavaScript templating engines?” Nunjucks is ranked 5th while Dust.js is ranked 9th.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion 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 Very user friendly
Pro Building blocks for CMS Websites
Another token based system with all of the logic, looping and variable control that other engines provide. But in addition it supports some more advanced page composition elements e.g. block inheritance, includes, layout inheritance, custom tags and macros — all absolutely perfect for a CMS where pages are typically composed of a series of “building blocks”.
Reference:
link
Pro Suppported by Mozilla
Pro Has Jinja2 as role model
Pro Open Source
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.